Indigenous Experience Today 1845205189
A century ago, the idea of indigenous people as an active force in the contemporary world was unthinkable. It was assume
410 69 2MB
English Pages 424 Year 2007
Contents......Page 6
Participants at the Wenner-Gren Foundation International Symposium "Indigenous Experience Today"......Page 8
Introduction......Page 10
Part 1: Indigenous Identities, Old and New......Page 40
1. Indigenous Voice......Page 42
2. Tibetan Indigeneity: Translations, Resemblances, and Uptake......Page 78
3. "Our Struggle Has Just Begun": Experiences of Belonging and Mapuche Formations of Self......Page 108
Part 2: Territory and Questions of Sovereignty......Page 132
4. Indigeneity as Relational Identity: The Construction of Australian Land Rights......Page 134
5. Choctaw Tribal Sovereignty at the Turn of the 21st Century......Page 160
6. Sovereignty's Betrayals......Page 180
Part 3: Indigeneity Beyond Borders......Page 204
7. Varieties of Indigenous Experience: Diasporas, Homelands, Sovereignties......Page 206
8. Diasporic Media and Hmong/Miao Formulations of Nativeness and Displacement......Page 234
9. Bolivian Indigeneity in Japan: Folklorized Music Performance......Page 256
Part 4: The Boundary Politics of Indigeneity......Page 282
10. Indian Indigeneities: Adivasi Engagements with Hindu Nationalism in India......Page 284
11. "Ever-Diminishing Circles": The Paradoxes of Belonging in Botswana......Page 314
12. The Native and the Neoliberal Down Under: Neoliberalism and "Endangered Authenticities"......Page 342
Part 5: Indigenous Self-Representation, Non-Indigenous Collaborators and the Politics of Knowledge......Page 362
13. Melting Glaciers and Emerging Histories in the Saint Elias Mountains......Page 364
14. The Terrible Nearness of Distant Places: Making History at the National Museum of the American Indian......Page 388
Afterword: Indigeneity Today......Page 406
A......Page 414
C......Page 415
D......Page 416
G......Page 417
I......Page 418
L......Page 419
M......Page 420
P......Page 421
S......Page 422
T......Page 423
Z......Page 424
Recommend Papers
![The indigenous peoples of Trinidad and Tobago from the first settlers until today [1 ed.]
9789088903540, 9789088903533](https://ebin.pub/img/200x200/the-indigenous-peoples-of-trinidad-and-tobago-from-the-first-settlers-until-today-1nbsped-9789088903540-9789088903533.jpg)
File loading please wait...
Citation preview
Indigenous Experience Today
WENNER-GREN INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM SERIES ......................................................... SeriesEditor:LeslieC.Aiello,President,Wenner-GrenFoundationfor AnthropologicalResearch,NewYork. ISSN:1475-536X Previoustitlesinthisseries: AnthropologyBeyondCulture EditedbyRichardG.Fox&BarbaraJ.King,2002 PropertyinQuestion:ValueTransformationintheGlobalEconomy EditedbyKatherineVerdery&CarolineHumphrey,2004 HearingCultures:EssaysonSound,ListeningandModernity EditedbyVeitErlmann,2004 EmbeddingEthics EditedbyLynnMeskell&PeterPels,2005 World Anthropologies: Disciplinary Transformations within Systems of Power EditedbyGustavoLinsRibeiroandArturoEscobar,2006 SensibleObjects:Colonialisms,MuseumsandMaterialCulture EditedbyElizabethEdwards,ChrisGosdenandRuthB.Phillips,2006 RootsofHumanSociality:Culture,CognitionandInteraction EditedbyN.J.EnfieldandStephenC.Levinson,2006 WheretheWildThingsAreNow:DomesticationReconsidered EditedbyRebeccaCassidyandMollyMullin,2007 AnthropologyPuttoWork EditedbyLesW.FieldandRichardG.Fox,2007 Sinceitsinceptionin1941,theWenner-GrenFoundationhasconvenedmore than125internationalsymposiaonpressingissuesinanthropology.These symposiaaffirmtheworthofanthropologyanditscapacitytoaddressthe natureofhumankindfromawidevarietyofperspectives.Eachsymposium bringstogetherparticipantsfromaroundtheworld,representingdifferent theoretical disciplines and traditions, for a week-long engagement on a specific issue. The Wenner-Gren International Symposium Series was initiatedin2000toensurethepublicationanddistributionoftheresults ofthefoundation’sInternationalSymposiumProgram. Priortothisseries,somelandmarkWenner-Grenvolumesinclude:Man’s RoleinChangingtheFaceoftheEarth(1956),ed.WilliamL.Thomas;Manthe Hunter(1968),edsIrvDeVoreandRichardB.Lee;ClothandHumanExperience (1989),edsJaneSchneiderandAnnetteWeiner;andTools,Languageand CognitioninHumanEvolution(1993),edsKathleenGibsonandTimIngold. Reportsonrecentsymposiaandfurtherinformationcanbefoundonthe foundation’swebsiteatwww.wennergren.org.
Indigenous Experience Today Edited by MARISOL DE LA CADENA AND ORIN STARN
Oxford • New York
Firstpublishedin2007by Berg Editorialoffices: 1stFloor,AngelCourt,81StClementsStreet,Oxford,OX41AW,UK 175FifthAvenue,NewYork,NY10010,USA ©Wenner-GrenFoundationforAnthropologicalResearch2007 Allrightsreserved. Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproducedinanyform orbyanymeanswithoutthewrittenpermissionofBerg. BergistheimprintofOxfordInternationalPublishersLtd.
LibraryofCongressCataloguing-in-PublicationData Indigenousexperiencetoday/editedbyMarisoldelaCadenaand OrinStarn. p.cm.—(Wenner-GrenInternationalSymposiumseries) Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex. ISBN-13:978-1-84520-518-8(cloth) ISBN-10:1-84520-518-9(cloth) ISBN-13:978-1-84520-519-5(pbk.) ISBN-10:1-84520-519-7(pbk.) 1.Indigenouspeoples—Socialconditions. 2.Indigenouspeoples— Governmentrelations. 3.Cultureandglobalization. I.Cadena, Marisoldela. II.Starn,Orin. GN380.I5232007 305.8—dc22 2007012821
BritishLibraryCataloguing-in-PublicationData AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary. ISBN 9781845205188(Cloth) ISBN 9781845205195(Paper) TypesetbyJSTypesettingLtd,Porthcawl,MidGlamorgan PrintedintheUnitedKingdombyBiddlesLtd,King’sLynn
www.bergpublishers.com
Contents
ParticipantsattheWenner-GrenFoundation InternationalSymposium“IndigenousExperience Today” Introduction MarisoldelaCadenaandOrinStarn
vii
1
Part1:IndigenousIdentities,OldandNew 1
IndigenousVoice AnnaTsing
33
2
TibetanIndigeneity:Translations,Resemblances,and Uptake EmilyT.Yeh
69
3
“OurStruggleHasJustBegun”:ExperiencesofBelonging andMapucheFormationsofSelf ClaudiaBriones
99
Part2:TerritoryandQuestionsofSovereignty 4
IndigeneityasRelationalIdentity:TheConstructionof AustralianLandRights FrancescaMerlan
125
5
ChoctawTribalSovereigntyattheTurnofthe 21stCentury ValerieLambert
151
6
Sovereignty’sBetrayals MichaelF.Brown
171 v
vi
Contents
Part3:IndigeneityBeyondBorders 7 VarietiesofIndigenousExperience:Diasporas, Homelands,Sovereignties JamesClifford
197
8 DiasporicMediaandHmong/MiaoFormulationsof NativenessandDisplacement LouisaSchein
225
9 BolivianIndigeneityinJapan:FolklorizedMusic Performance MichelleBigenho
247
Part4:TheBoundaryPoliticsofIndigeneity 10 IndianIndigeneities:AdivasiEngagementswithHindu NationalisminIndia AmitaBaviskar
275
11 “Ever-DiminishingCircles”:TheParadoxesofBelonging inBotswana FrancisB.Nyamnjoh
305
12 TheNativeandtheNeoliberalDownUnder: Neoliberalismand“EndangeredAuthenticities” LindaTuhiwaiSmith
333
Part5:IndigenousSelf-Representation,Non-Indigenous CollaboratorsandthePoliticsofKnowledge 13 MeltingGlaciersandEmergingHistoriesinthe SaintEliasMountains JulieCruikshank
355
14 TheTerribleNearnessofDistantPlaces:MakingHistory attheNationalMuseumoftheAmericanIndian PaulChaatSmith
379
Afterword:IndigeneityToday MaryLouisePratt
397
Index
405
Participants at the Wenner-Gren Foundation International Symposium “Indigenous Experience Today”
AmitaBaviskar,InstituteofEconomicGrowth,Delhi MichelleBigenho,HampshireCollege ClaudiaBriones,UniversityofBuenosAires MichaelF.Brown,WilliamsCollege JamesClifford,UniversityofCalifornia,SantaCruz JulieCruikshank,UniversityofBritishColumbia MarisoldelaCadena(Organizer),UniversityofCalifornia,Davis KreggHetherington(Monitor),UniversityofCalifornia,Davis ValerieLambert,UniversityofNorthCarolina FrancescaMerlan,AustraliaNationalUniversity FrancisB.Nyamnjoh,CODESRIA,Dakar,Senegal MaryLouisePratt,NewYorkUniversity LouisaSchein,RutgersUniversity PaulChaatSmith,NationalMuseumoftheAmericanIndian OrinStarn(Organizer),DukeUniversity AnnaTsing,UniversityofCalifornia,SantaCruz LindaTuhiwaiSmith,UniversityofAuckland EmilyT.Yeh,UniversityofColorado,Boulder
vii
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction Marisol de la Cadena and Orin Starn
A
centuryago,theideaofindigenouspeopleasanactiveforceinthe contemporaryworldwasunthinkable.AccordingtomostWestern thinkers,nativesocietiesbelongedtoanearlier,inferiorstageofhuman historydoomedtoextinctionbytheforwardmarchofprogressand history. Even those sympathetic with indigenous peoples—whether MaoriinNewZealand,SaninSouthAfrica,orMiskituinNicaragua—felt littlecouldbedonetopreventtheirdestructionoratleastassimilationintothemainstream.TheU.S.poetHenryWadsworthLongfellow describedNativeAmericansas“theredsundescending”inTheSong ofHiawatha,animmenselypopularandbyturnsmaudlin,mesmerizing,andromantic1855epicpoem.Asforward-lookingashewasin somerespects,aniconofanti-imperialistLatinAmericannationalism, AugustoCésarSandino,longedforthedaywhenNicaraguanIndians wouldbeabsorbedintoasinglemestizo,ormixednation.Thefuture oftheworld,itseemed,belongedeverywheretotheWestanditsown peculiarbrandofprogressandcivilization. History has not turned out that way at all. Many tribal societies haveindeedbeenwipedoutbywar,disease,exploitation,andcultural assimilationovertheselastcenturies.1Butfarfromvanishingasthe confidentpredictionsoncehadit,nativepeoplestodayshowdemographicstrength,evengrowth.Morethanfourmillionpeopleinthe United States now classify themselves as “Native American.” Many timesmoreclaimindigenousmembershipgloballyfromtheBaSarwain BotswanatoNewCaledoniansinOceaniaandtheAinuofnorthernJapan. Onerecentestimateputsthenumberatover250millionworldwide spreadacrossmorethan4,000differentgroups.2Justasimportantly, indigenous peoples have asserted their place in 21st-century global
1
2 MarisoldelaCadenaandOrinStarn
culture,economy,andpolitics.NewZealandMaorihavebecomeaforce tobereckonedwithinthearts,sports,music,andnationallifewith Maoriactorsstarringinthebox-officehitsOnceWereWarriors(1994)and TheWhaleRider(2003).InEcuador,newlyelectedQuichuamayorshave transformedlocalgovernment.Andalthoughpoverty,discrimination andsecond-classcitizenshipveryoftenshapeindigenouslivestoday, notableexceptionsalsoundercutanysimpleassociationofindigeneity withmiseryandmarginalization—andthestatusofindigenouspeoples asobjectsofsometimescondescendingpity.Intheespeciallydramatic case of the United States, once impoverished tribes like the Pequot, Kumeyaay,andUmatillahavebuiltcasinocomplexescompletewith golfcourses,luxuryhotels,tribalmuseums,andgiantparkinglotsfor visitorsbusedinfrombigcities.Thesegroupshavegonefrompoor, forgotten,andvirtuallyinvisibletoaformidableforceinlessthana generation. Equallyevidentisthatindigenouspeoplesarehighlyheterogeneous in their views and agendas. Consider two contrasting examples. In Alaska,theKaktovikInupiatCorporation—anorganizationmadeup ofKaktovikmiutandlocalwhalingcaptains—supportsoildevelopment in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which some native people feel was created without adequate consultation in the first place. This group has clashed with environmentalists, and wants to work with the Shell Oil Company.3 By contrast, Bolivian President Evo Morales, the first self-declared indigenous president in modern Andeanhistory,orderedtroopstooccupyhiscountry’soilandgasfields cededearliertomultinationalcorporations.“Capitalismistheworst enemy of humanity,” he announced together with his intention to renegotiateallcontracts.Ifmosttalkabout“diversity”andindigenous peoples concentrates on culture and language, the variety of their sometimes conflicting economic and political viewpoints prove just aspronounced. Thisbookexaminesthevariedfacesofindigenousexperiencetoday. Bycontrastwiththeimageofnativesrootedalwaystotheiroriginal territories, the chapters collected here chart diasporic indigenous experiences,andtheglobalcirculationofthediscourseandpoliticsof indigeneity.Ratherthanrelyingonshopwornnotionsofunchanging “nativetradition,”ourcontributorsshowindigenouspeopledealing withthetensedynamicsofbeingcategorizedbyothersandseeking to define themselves within and against indigeneity’s dense web of symbols, fantasies, and meanings. None of these chapters assume thatthecriteriaforindigeneityareeverself-evidentorintrinsic;they
Introduction 3
examineinsteadthechangingboundarypoliticsandepistemologies ofbloodandculture,time,andplacethatdefinewhowillorwillnot count as indigenous in the first place. We share a view of mixture, eclecticism,anddynamismastheessenceofindigeneityasopposedto afallingoffor“corruption”ofsomeoriginalstateofpurity.Afurther commonthreadisourdesiretohistoricizeindigeneitysoastoexpose itslackofpreestablished,“natural”boundariesofanysort.Webelieve thistheonlywaytoundothicklysedimentedstereotypesabouttimeless “tribal cultures” that materialize in everything from glossy travel magazinestoHollywoodmoviesandstatepolicies—andsometimesin thedeclarationsofactivistsandadvocatesthemselves.Reckoningwith indigeneitydemandsrecognizingitasarelationalfieldofgovernance, subjectivities, and knowledges that involves us all—indigenous and nonindigenous—inthemakingandremakingofitsstructuresofpower andimagination.
ReconceptualizingIndigeneity In the last decades the public presence of indigenous intellectuals has successfully undermined evolutionary historicism’s authority to force a rethinking of the notion of indigeneity itself. One thinks of theshortstoriesofCoeurD’AlenewriterShermanAlexie,thepainting of Australian aboriginal artist Emily Kngwarreye, or the filmmaking of Inuit director Zacharias Kunuk. Maori educators have influenced nationalsocial policy inNew Zealand,while Aymara historiansand Maya linguists have had a strong hand in constitutional reforms in Bolivia and Guatemala. The very idea of such interventions would havebeenunimaginablewithinoldermodernistteleologiesthathad noplaceforindigenousagencyorfutures. But, as a number of indigenous critics have themselves insisted, recent achievements do not mean that indigenous individuals have somehowsuddenlyfounddeliveranceinahappilymulticulturalworld. Neither does it mean that in its new public presence, indigeneity is peopledbyinstinctiveenvironmentalists,spiritualdo-goodersaverse tomaterialthings,andnaturallycommunitarianleftistsalwaysaligned againstcapitalistinterestsandthestatusquo.Theseviewstoooften express what Ramachandra Guha (1989) has called “reverse Orientalism” a discourse that precludes an understanding of indigeneity as an open-ended historical process, inevitably marked by past and presentcolonialismsandyetalsounfoldingalongasyetundetermined pathways.Bycontrast,weborrowfromStuartHall’s(1996)influential
4 MarisoldelaCadenaandOrinStarn
conceptionofblackculturalpoliticstoproposethatindigenousactivism is“withoutguarantees.”Indigenismhasneverbeenasingularideology, program,ormovement,anditspoliticsresistclosure.Toassumethat itpossessesaunifiedmuchlesspredeterminedtrajectoryishistorically inaccurate,conceptuallyflawed,andsimplistic.Althoughindigenous activismcanwellbelinkedtosocialjusticeandinspiretransformative visions,asapoliticalorderitcanbemotivatedbydifferentideological positions,allofthemabletoeffectexclusionsandforcedinclusions (Mouffe2005). Buthow,then,mightindigeneitybereconceptualized?Avitalstarting pointistorecognizethatindigeneityemergesonlywithinlargersocial fields of difference and sameness; it acquires its “positive” meaning notfromsomeessentialpropertiesofitsown,butthroughitsrelation towhatitisnot,towhatitexceedsorlacks.(Butler1993;Hall1996). Thisisnottosaythattheindigenousconditionissomehowderivative orwithoutpowerfulvisionsanddirectionsofitsown.Whatitdoes mean is that indigenous cultural practices, institutions, and politics become such in articulation with what is not considered indigenous withintheparticularsocialformationwheretheyexist.Indigeneity,in otherwords,isatoncehistoricallycontingentandencompassingofthe nonindigenous—andthusneveraboutuntouchedreality.“Settlerand native go together,” as political theorist Mahmood Mamdani (2004: 10)concludes,and“therecanbenosettlerwithoutanative,andvice versa.” As Mary Louise Pratt writes in her contribution to this volume, indigeneitynamesarelationshipbasedonaconceptionoftimeand spacethatdifferentiatesamonggroupsofpeople.WordslikeIndianin theAmericasandAborigineinAustraliawereEuropeaninventionsfor peoplesalreadythere,priortothearrivalofthecolonizers;andforits partindigenousderivesfromtheFrenchindigeneandtheLatinindigena. ThelabelindigenousfurtherdisclosedarelationshipwithothernonEuropeans:ThefirstEnglishusagecomesina1598reportaboutthe discoveryofAmericatodistinguishbetween“indigenes”(definedas “peoplebreduponthatverysoyle”)andthepeoplethatSpaniardsand PortuguesebroughtfromAfricaasslaves.4Notsurprisingly,theseforms ofrelationalityexpressedEuropeansuperiorityinsofaras“indigenous” was synonymous with “pagan,” heathen souls to be saved through Christianity.Later,asreasondisplacedfaithasauthority’sfoundation, “thepagan”wasrenamed“theprimitive”(asopposedto“civilized”) including those classified as “tribal,” “native” and “aborigine” in colonialadministrativelexicons.
Introduction 5
Tensionsbetweendifferenceandsamenessalsocharacterizedcolonial articulations of indigeneity. Although it would be hard to imagine groupsmoreunlikeeachotherthan,say,thesmall-scale,egalitarian bandsoftheKalahariDesertand,atanotherextreme,thevast,highly stratified,militaristicempiresoftheIncasandAztecsintheAmericas; to colonial administrators and their sciences, the differences only reflectedstagesintheevolutionofhumansocieties.Andyet,measuring native societies with evolutionary yardsticks also yielded differences that, notwithstanding the ahistorical imagination that conceived of them,becamematerialpracticeastheyshapedcolonialpoliciesthat influencedpostcolonialrelationstoourdays.TaketheWestAfricancase ofTogo.KabrevillagersinthemountainousNorthseemedtoFrench colonizerstobemoreintractably“savage”and“uncivilized”thanthe moreurban,politicallycentralizedEweinthecoastalsouth,whohad experiencewithearlierEuropeanslaversandtraders.Thus,theFrench concentratedmissionaryandeducationaleffortswiththeEwe,enabling themtobecometeachers,priests,andcivilservants.TheKabrewere insteadconscriptedasforcedlaborerstobuildroadsandrailroadsfor theirFrenchandthenGermanmasters.Thesecolonialpoliciesfeda dynamicinwhichthesouthernEweregardedthenorthernKabreas backwardandbrutishandtheKabre,inturn,resentedthesoutherners that the European colonizers favored. The resulting divisions shape Togo’s fraught postcolonial politics even today (Piot 1999; Toulabor 1985). Ifdifferencesamonglocalsocietieswereimportant,thepoliciesof differentcolonialpowerswerealsovariedandchangeableacrosstime, withstillfurtherconsequencesforindigeneity’sdivergentpathways.For example,the16th-centuryIberianconquerorsofMexicointermarried with Indians enabling the later invention of the mestizo, the racial category made emblematic in modern Mexican nationalism of the supposed reconciliation between the Spanish and Indian worlds. By contrast, the Dutch colonizers of 19th-century Indonesia adhered to dogmas about “racial degeneration” then dominant in scientific discourse;theychoosetoenforcewhiteendogamytotrytoprevent “dangerous mixtures” between Europeans and natives (Stoler 2002). Thesameimperialepistemologyofnativeoriginalsameness—andthe disavowaloflocalethnicitiesandtheirmixtures—underlayIndonesian elitenationalismyearslater,thistimewithnativenesspositivelyrecoded as the touchstone of a homogenized vision of national citizenship. Thesecontrastingcolonialhistoriesmanifestthemselvesinconditions ofindigeneitytoday.AlthoughinMexicobeingindigenousisanoldand
6 MarisoldelaCadenaandOrinStarn
unchallengedimage,convenientandevennecessaryfortheconstant productionofthemestizo,inIndonesiaclaimingtobeindigenousisa newandhighlycontroversialstepforpoorandruralminoritiesintheir challengetoelitenationalistclaimsofnativesameness.Thediversity ofindigenoushistoriesisyetmoreevidentwhenoneconsidersnonEuropeanformsofcolonialism.TheAmi,Atayal,andotheraboriginal peoplesinpresent-dayTaiwansufferedmultiplecolonizations:firstby 17th-centuryFulaoandHakkafarmersfrommainlandChina;second bytheJapanesefollowingtheSino-JapaneseWarin1894;andfinally byChinesenationalistforcesfleeingMao’sCommunistrevolutionin 1949.Thesenativegroupsmustseekculturalandpoliticalrightsina societywherethemorenumerousFulaoandHakkanowclaimtobe “indigenousTaiwanese”forhavingpredatedthemassiveKuomintang landing(Chung-minetal.1994;Wachman1994). All this heterogeneity has been at uneasy odds with visions of indigeneity as a unitary category occupied by those imagined at humanity’s“lowest”rung.WhetherIndiansinIbero-Americaor“tribals” inAfrica,India,orNorthAmerica,theselabelsdescribedmostlyrural populations(“hunter-gatherers”or“cultivators”)uniformlyimagined as close to “nature” (the beginning of the world) and far-off from “civilization”(thegoalofHistory).Deniedwerethemanifoldparticular historiesofinteractionamongnatives,settlers,andothergroups(like theAfricanslaveswhoarrivedtotheAmericaswiththeSpanishorthe indenturedIndianlaborersbroughttoFijibytheBritish).Canonical Western philosophers—most notably Immanuel Kant and Georg WilhelmFriedrichHegel—usedlineartimeandproximitytonatureto explaincultural(andracial)differencebetween“non-civilized”peoples andEuropeans.Inthesocialsciences,EmileDurkheim,LucienLévyBruhl, and other prominent scholars would have agreed with E. B. Tylor,afoundingfigureinanthropology,that“onesetofsavagesis liketheother”(1903:6).Evenifscholarsgrantedimportancetolocal specificities, these would always fit the evolutionary epistemology that Universal History had popularized. Rome was “the embryo of humancivilization”claimedJamesFrazer(1931[1888])andprimitive culturesweresurvivals;5differencesamongthemrepresenteddifferent moments of the past. What Michel-Rolph Trouillot (1991) calls the “savage slot” further materialized with the new disciplinary field of anthropologytakingindigenouspeoplesforitsobjectofstudyand,at times,advocacy. YetWesternscholarsandbureaucratswereneveraloneincrafting indigeneity.Thisformationalsoowesitscomplexgenealogyprecisely
Introduction 7
to those intellectuals, politicians, and common people classified by colonialknowledgeas“natives”(initsmultiplesynonyms)whochallenged their alleged anachronism, denounced European ignorance and inhumanity; in so doing, they contributed to alternative, often disparate,representationsofindigeneity.Forexample,GuamánPoma deAyala,aQuechuaIndian,tookuphispenin1585todetailtheabuses ofSpanishpriests,judges,andsoldiersina1,200pagelettertoKing PhillipIII.Inthe1780s,astheIroquoisConfederationcameunderattack followingtheAmericanRevolution,Thayeendanegea,aMohawkleader (whoseChristiannamewasJosephBrandt,andwhohadbeeneducated intheclassicsatMoor’sCharitySchool,nowDartmouthCollege)wrote toGeorgeWashington’snewgovernment.Thayeendanegeareminded theU.S.authoritiesthathewasbornandraised“amongthosewhom you are pleased to call savages,” that he had traveled extensively in NorthAmericaandEuropemeetinggreatleaders.“Nevertheless,”he continued,“afterallthisexperienceandaftereveryexertiontodivest myselfofprejudice,Iamobligedtogivemyopinioninfavourofmyown people”because“inthegovernmentyoucallcivilized,thehappiness ofthepeopleisconstantlysacrificedtothesplendorofempire.”(Tully 1995:95) Similar concerns triggered minor acts of resistance, small-scale uprisings, and sometimes massive rebellions. Contemporaries of Thayeendanegea,TúpacAmaruandTúpacKatari(QuechuaandAymara indigenous leaders, respectively) mounted massive insurrections reachinghundredsofmilesacrosstheAndes(Thomson2003).Inthe 19thcentury(atthetimewhenIbero-Americaseveredcolonialtieswith theSpanishandPortugueseCrowns)MaorisprotestingBritishruleof theirisland—Aotearoa,orNewZealandinEnglish—joinedthePaiMaire revoltledbyTeUaHaumene,apoliticianwhosubscribedtomillenarian ideologies of European expulsion and the restoration of native rule. Like Guamán Poma, Maori also addressed the ruling monarch, this timetheBritishQueen,denouncingsettlerignoranceandabuse(Adas 1979).Theseoftenverycosmopolitanindigenousactivistscontributed tothedensedialogicformationwearecalling“indigenity,”inwhich groupsandindividualsoccupyingnonindigenoussubjectpositionsalso participated. Thisactivism,however,didnotundotheoppositionbetweenthe “primitive”andthe“civilized,”whichremainedpivotalinindigeneity’s intricatefieldofmeanings,practices,andpolitics,andwassometimes adoptedbyindigenousleadersthemselves.Agrammarofanalogous contrasts has further linked indigeneity to the backward, rural, and
8 MarisoldelaCadenaandOrinStarn
illiterateasagainstthegoalsofmodernity,urbanization,andliteracy enshrinedasthedesiredendpointsofdevelopmentandprogress.Asthe projectofassimilationgainedcurrencyintheearly20thcentury,the aimofabsorbingindigenouspeopleintohomogenizedmodernnationstatesfoundexpressionintheLatinAmericanideologyofmestizaje; theU.S.policyofso-called“terminationandrelocation”duringthe Eisenhower years; and in France’s mission civilizatrice (civilizing mission)initsAfricancolonies.AssimilationwassanctionedbytheUN InternationalLaborOrganization(ILO)in1957:itencouragedmember states to “integrate” the “tribal” and “semi-tribal” populations who occupied“alessadvancedstagethantheaverageintheircountry.”6 Meanwhile, many Marxist groups dismissed indigenous practices as an“archaic”brandof“falseconsciousness”thatobstructedclassunity andrevolution.AndfarfromexclusivetotheWest,MuslimandHindu intellectualsalsoimaginedabackwardpopulationoftheirown,which theyidentifiedaslackingaworldreligion;classifiedas“animists,”these groups,mostlyruralandpeasants,werelabeledastribalandtraditional, a backward Other assumed to be “behind” civilization’s curve (see Baviskarthisvolume). Butbythelate20thcentury,indigenouspoliticalmovementsworldwidewereforcefullyquestioningassimilationism.TheILOreversedfield in1989torecognize“theaspirationsofthesepeoplestoexercisecontrol overtheirowninstitutions,waysoflifeandeconomicdevelopment... andtomaintainanddeveloptheiridentities,languagesandreligions, withintheframeworkoftheStatesinwhichtheylive.”7Thegradual discrediting of assimilationist agendas and their replacement with diversityastheputativegoalofsocialpolicy—coincidingwiththeCold War’sendandtheseemingtriumphoftheso-calledneoliberalmodel ofcapitalismanddemocracy—accompaniedtheascendanceofvarious formsofmulticulturalism(Kymlicka2001;VanCott2000).Although embracingthecredoofculturalpluralismandequality,multiculturalism hasposednewdilemmasandconstraintsofitsown.Criticsworrythat “multicultural neoliberalism” incorporates “diversity” as little more than a strategy of management, containment, and global capitalist expansion without any real change to structures of racial hierarchy andeconomicinequality(Hale2006;PosteroandZamosc2004).And evenincasesinwhichmulticulturalismhassparkedgenuinetalkabout dignityandrespectfornativecultures,ithasnotdoneawaywiththe compulsion to equate indigeneity, or at least authentic indigeneity, withautocthonyandthepremodern.
Introduction 9
Emergingfrom,alongwith,andagainstthesepoliticalandacademic practicescontemporaryindigenousexperiencesaremarkedbyinconsistentexpectationsunderpinnedbyfantasiesofindigeneityasexterior tohistoryanduniquelynonmodern.Ontheonehand,thosewhodress infeathers,facepaint,“nativecostume”orotherwisepubliclyembrace theirtraditionsriskself-positioninginthesemanticextremesofexotic primitivism,whatRamos(1998)calls“thehyperrealIndian.”Onthe other hand, those who do not seem to measure up to stereotypical “feathers-and-beads” expectations often find themselves stigmatized as “half-breeds,” “assimilated,” or even imposters; wearing suit and tie risks accusations of false indigenousness. Recently for example, theacclaimedPeruvianwriterMarioVargasLlosa,dismissedBolivian AymaraPresidentEvoMoralesasa“fake”Indian—inspiteofthefact thatMoralesspeakstheindigenouslanguageandgrewupinapoor mountainvillage.“Evo,”VargasLlosaasserts,is“theemblematicLatin Americancriollo,cunningasasquirrel,apoliticalclimberandcharlatan, withavastexperienceasamanipulatorofmenandwomenacquired in his long trajectory as leader of coca leaf growers and member of the labor union aristocracy.”8 The spurious calculus of authenticity andculturalpurityhereatworkassumesthat“genuine”indigenous intellectuals,businessmen,filmmakers,sportsstars,andpoliticiansdo not,indeedcannot,exist—orarerare,oxymoronicexceptions,atbest. ThatthesameMarioVargasLlosahad,someyearsearlier,approvingly identifiedthenewPeruvianpresidentAlejandroToledoasanIndian only underlines the fickle, sometimes contradictory expectations surroundingindigeneity.9BesidesToledonotspeakingQuechua,the maindifferencebetweenhimandMoralesisideological:theBolivian opposesneoliberalism,thePeruvianembracesit—asdoesVargasLlosa. Thefamouswriter’sselectivewillingnesstograntIndianauthenticity tooneandnottheothermightbelabeledpoliticallymotivated;some might claim the same about Morales’s or Toledo’s self-positioning as indigenous. More deeply, it becomes evident that very different notionsof“indigenousidentity”cancoexistinthemindofoneand thesameperson(inthiscaseaninternationallyacclaimednovelist):as anevolutionarynarrativeaccordingtowhichnomodernpoliticiancan reallybeindigenous,orbycontrastasafixedsubjectpositionderiving from “blood,” “heritage,” and social background in which current occupationisirrelevant.Bothinterpretationsarepartofindigeneity as a social formation—although neither is more real than the other one,theirrespectivetruthclaimshavedifferentpoliticalandeconomic consequences.
10
Marisol de la Cadena and Orin Starn
IndigeneityBeyondEthnicity? The last few decades have witnessed the convergence of indigenous activists in what some have called a global indigenous movement (Niezen2000).Themostimmediaterootsofthisneworganizingdate totheprotestyearsofthe1960sand1970sandtheindigenousgroups that emerged in that period of decolonization and social upheaval. The U.S. Red Power movement—which joined elements of Marxist andIndianprideideologies—wasoneespeciallyimportantinfluence (SmithandWarrior1996).Extensivemediacoverageofprotestslikethe takeoverofAlcatrazIslandandtheTrailofBrokenTreatiesbroadcast indigenous concerns worldwide. But even within the United States, this activism was never neatly unified in ideology or aims; on the contrary,tensionsandantagonismswerepartoftheindigenouspolitical sphere.SomeolderNativeAmericanactivistsdislikedtheRedPower radicalismoftheAmericanIndianMovement—andsomewomenfound itsmale-dominated“warrior”ethostobeoppressivelypatriarchal.In NewZealand,theMarxist-inspiredPolynesianPantherMovement(with tiestotheBlackPanthersintheUnitedStates)squaredoffagainstthe NgaTamatoa,anon-Marxist,antiracist,andmoreculturallyminded groupledbyuniversity-trainedMaoriintellectuals.10InLatinAmerica, indigenousgroupsrangedfrommilitantethnicnationalistgroupsthat rejectedanyoutsiderinvolvement—likesomeearlyBolivianAymara organizations—toorganizationsworkingformodeststatereforms,while promotingindigenousintegrationintocapitalistmarkets.Indigenous organizationsmultipliedinthe1980sand1990swithimportantsupportfromNGOswithindigenousconcernsacquiringunprecedented political visibility in Latin America, the United States, Canada, New Zealand,andAustralia. Varieddemandsfoundvigorousexpression.Theyincludedlandclaims, controloverculturalheritage,bilingualeducation,theinclusionand commemorationofindigenoushistoriesinnationalimaginaries,and therightsofindigenouspeoplestospeakforandrepresentthemselvesas opposedtobeing“spokenfor”bynonindigenousexperts,bureaucrats, andpolicymakers.Theincreasingvisibilityofthisactivism—aidedby multiculturalism’s new ascendancy in global political discourse—led theUnitedNationstodeclare1993the“YearoftheWorld’sIndigenous Peoples.” A Maya woman, Rigoberta Menchú, won the Nobel Peace prize and became a lightning rod for controversy about the brutal counterinsurgencycampaignoftheGuatemalanarmyagainstIndian villagers.11Theconceptofindigenousrightstraveledtonewpartsof
Introduction 11
theworldwithvaryingresults(Brysk2000;García2005;Hodgson2001; Tsing2005). Contemporary indigenous political activism raises fundamental issues,somefamiliarandotherslessso.Currentindigenismcontinues tochallengetheWesternmodelofcivilizationandprogressbyinsisting that Euroamerican colonialism and capitalist expansion have been a misadventure of violence, destruction and the trampling of nonWesternpeoples.Newattemptshavealsobeenmadetodecolonizethe categoriesof“Indian”and“native,”undoingevolutionaryviewpoints and recovering the historical local distinctiveness of marginalized groups.Moreover,insomeemergentversionsaconcertedefforthas occurredtoconnectindigenousandnonindigenoussubalterngroups thatsharerelativelysimilarpoliticalinterests.Thisstrategy—atleast in theory—would yield a broad coalition of subaltern organizations underpinned by a flexible notion of demands for “cultural rights” includingclaimsforthepoliticalself-representationofmarginalized groups.Suchindigenousactivismthusmayservetoarticulateprojects forsocialjusticebeyondexclusivenotionsofethnicidentity.Inthis vein, Peruvian sociologist Aníbal Quijano perceives a trend among Andean activists toward “subalternizing indigenous politics and indigenizing subaltern politics” to generate an organic link among politicalorganizationsrepresentingethnicandnon-ethnicsubaltern interests (Quijano 2006).12 The Zapatista movement originating in Mexico’simpoverishedMayan-dominatedLacandonjungleregionis onetangibleexampleofsuchnewexpressionsofindigeneity. Theresultingnewmixedformsofindigenousidentityandpolitics involvewhatanthropologistTaniaLicalls“positionings”historically enabled by “sedimented practices, landscapes, and repertoires of meaning”andbroughtaboutthrough“particularpatternsofengagement andstruggle”(2000:151).Asitalwayshasbeen,indigenismtodayisa process;aseriesofencounters;astructureofpower;asetofrelationships; amatterofbecoming,inshort,andnotafixedstateofbeing.Inits most ambitious expressions, and articulated to alter-globalization processes, the new indigenism seeks to undo hegemonic signifiers, affecttheirusualsemanticchemistrytoproducenewvalences,andthus reconfigureindigeneityitselfopeningituptotheacknowledgementof historicalcontemporaneityandradicalsocialjustice.Obviously,because indigenousactivismisnotamonolithicentitybut,onthecontrary, anecessarilyfragmentedprocess,someofitsfractionsareincludedin thedominantandthehegemonic(Hall1996;Williams1977),whereas others emerge as counterhegemonic formations—and still others
12
Marisol de la Cadena and Orin Starn
straddleboth,ormovefromonetotheother.Moreover,wehaveto rememberthatindigeneityencompassesmuchmorethanidentitiesor socialmovements.Itisaworldwidefieldofgovernance,subjectivities, andknowledgesinvolvingbothindigenousandnonindigenouspeoples intheirowndifferentways.Indigeneityitselfmaterializesinanintricate dynamic among converging and competing agendas, visions, and intereststhattranspireatlocal,national,andgloballevels. The chapters in this volume show the immense variation in the processes of localization (or rejection) of indigenous identities and thedivergingnationalandregionalformstheycanassume.Together theyseektocontributetowhatJamesClifford(thisvolume)calls“an interactive,dynamicprocessofshiftingscalesandaffiliations,uprooting andrerooting,thewaxingandwaningofidentities”thathashistorically characterized indigenous experiences. The histories described in the chaptersthatfollowarenotdeviationsfromsomebaseline,“normative” checklistofexpectationsforindigenouscultureandpolitics.Theyaim insteadtoreleaseindigeneityfromtheflatteningepistemologiesthat overlookthatanyattempttodefinewhatisindigenousandwhatis notisnecessarilyrelationalandhistorical—andthereforeprovisional andcontextrelated.
IndigenousIdentities,OldandNew The globalization of the concept of indigenous rights has been by turns powerful, uneven, and unpredictable. As it has traveled from familiarcontextslikeCanada,theUnitedStates,andBraziltonewer ones like India and Indonesia, the discourse of indigeneity has encountered interlocutors among marginalized, usually rural populations.Herenationalistpolicieshaveveryoftenclassifiedvillagersas “backward” and “in need of improvement” while simultaneously declaringtheentirenationalcitizenrytobe“indigenous”andthus obscuring the cultural singularity of local minority groups (usually non-Muslim,ornon-Hindu).InIndonesia,forexample,AnnaTsing (thisvolume)describeshowyoungenvironmentalactivistscarveda nationalspaceforindigeneitybyarticulatingittoadat,alocalidiom withlonghistoricalsemantics,andthereforelocalleverage,butthat hadtoberesignifiedintheprocessofpoliticalactivism.Bycontrast withNorthAmerica,wherearacializedbiopoliticsofwhitesupremacy andbrownsubalternityhasimprintedthedynamicsofindigeneity,in IndonesiaorIndia,casteorreligionmarkthedifferencebetweenthose potentiallyconsideredindigenousornonindigenous,whichtherefore
Introduction 13
donotnecessarily“look”differentasusuallyimaginedinCanadaor theUnitedStates.Tsinginsiststhatanyassessmentofthe“powerful travelingaxesofindigenousconcern”mustattendtothe“concrete historyofdivergentindigeneities”andtrace“linkswithoutsubsumingthemtouniversals.” And,infact,giventheweightoflocalhistories,thespreadofthese emergent forms of indigeneity has met with opposition or at least indifference in some places—even where indigenous peoples have had a long-established marginal presence. For example, by contrast to vigorous activism in neighboring Bolivia and Ecuador, Peruvian Aymaras and Quechuas have been relatively unresponsive to social movementsorganizedunderthebannerofindigenousculturalrights.13 EmilyYeh(thisvolume)examinesthecaseofTibetasanexampleof indigenismdisavowed.Althoughtheymightseemtofitthearchetypal formulaofinhabitinganancestralhomeland,possessingadistinctive languageandculture,andbeingcolonizedbyoutsiders,Tibetansseldom callthemselves“indigenous,”andmoreoftenuseas“saskyerdoskyes (lit.,‘bornofthissoilandrock’).”Yehtracesthislackof“uptake”of thewidelycirculatingglobalcategoryof“indigenouspeoples”partly to official Chinese policy. State insistence that everyone in China is “indigenous” has effectively stripped the category of its power to convey Tibetan feelings of occupation and domination by Beijing. ManyTibetanexilesalsofindtheidiomofindigenousrights—andits associationwithaclaimofsovereigntyasopposedtosecession—too weaktoexpresstheirdesireforindependencefromChina.Becoming indigenousisalwaysonlyapossibilitynegotiatedwithinpoliticalfields ofcultureandhistory. Every generation, too, may seek to redefine indigenous identities. Claudia Briones (this volume) finds young Argentine Mapuches less interested in older Mapuche agendas of land rights and traditional political organizing than in asserting their Mapucheness while establishingidentitiesaspunkrockandheavymetalfansandmusicians. These self-announced “Mapunkies” and “Maheavies” embrace the rebelliousnessofglobalyouthcultureand,atthesametime,addanew dimensionasinlyricsaboutthetravailsofMapuchehistory.Anolder, more organized politics aiming to transform or even sever relations betweenMapuchesandtheArgentinestategiveswaytoanewcultural politicsthatfocusesonthebody,materialculture,andthepoliticsof styleandmassmedia—whileatthesametimeassertingtheirrightto aplaceasMapuchesinArgentinaasanation.TheseyoungerMapuche with their tatoos, piercings, and black leather jackets define a new
14
Marisol de la Cadena and Orin Starn
urbanindigenousidentity.Theirpresenceundercutsstandardviewsof Argentinaasahomogeneouslywhitenationwhileunderscoringthe absurdity of persisting mythologies about Indians as still somehow belonging to a premodern world of the grass hut and the bow and arrow.
TerritoryandtheQuestionofSovereignty The more familiar matters of territory and sovereignty remain very muchofconcerntoindigenouspeoplesinmanypartsoftheworld. Manygroupspossessasenseofrootednesstotheland—andofprior occupationtoforeigninvaders—characterizedbydistinctivehistorically andculturallyshapedunderstandingsandconnectionstoanintimately knownlandscape(Kirsch2001).ThisisthecaseofFirstNationindividuals, inNorthernYukonTerritories,whoseoraltraditions,accordingtoJulie Cruikshank (this volume), reveal a “dwelling perspective” derived from “intense engagement with environment maintained through millennia.”14Landandwaterwerethebasisofindigenouslifeinanolder day,andremainsoinsomecasestoday.Becausecolonizationbyoutsiders sooftenwentalongwiththetraumaticbreakdownofprecolonialways ofbeing,thedefenseorrecoveryofterritoryhasveryoftenbecomemore thanjustamatterofeconomicsurvival,butalsoconnectedtothedream of revitalization, homeland, and restored dignity. At the same time, strugglesoverterritoryareseldomneatlycohesiveordrivenbynoble orutopianidealsalone.Moneyandcorporateappetitescanenterthe mix,creatingdissensionwithinnativegroupsorpittingthemagainst oneanother.Awell-knownexampleisthelong-running,sometimes fiercedisputebetweenNavajoandHopioverArizonalandclaimedby bothtribesexacerbatedbytheinvolvementofthegiantPeabodyCoal Companyandthelucrativemineralleasingrightsinvolved. AnthropologistFrancescaMerlan(thisvolume)considersthecaseof Australia.Shescrutinizesthekeyrolethatlandhastakeninaboriginal politicalmobilizationthereoverthelastthreedecades.AsMerlansees it,privileginglandasanobjectofstruggleassumesakindofuniformity of native interest in defense of the land and environment that beliesthatsomeaboriginalgroupshavesupportedminingandother developmentwithhopesforemploymentandeconomicopportunity. Tostressnativelinkstoafixedterritorycanalsoinadvertentlyreinforce adominantAustralianvisionofaboriginesas“undomesticated”and “wild”—andacorrespondingviewofthosewholiveincitiesas“inauthentic”andnot“real”nativepeople.Mostaboriginesmaketheir
Introduction 15
homesnowinSydneyandotherbigcities.Theirsocialneeds,Merlan notes, revolve around the educational system, access to health care andgoodjobsforthesefamiliesthathavenotlivedoffthelandin anytraditionalsenseforgenerations.Merlansuggeststhataboriginal politicalactivismmightberecalibratedsoastoaddressterritorialrights inconjunctionwithmoreencompassingagendasofsocialwelfareand economicopportunity. Theconcernforterritorylinkstobroaderdemandsforsovereignty. Anthropologist Valerie Lambert (this volume) examines the accomplishmentsandchallengesfortheChoctawintheUnitedStatesintheir questforameasureofrealtribalpowerovertheirownlivesandland. As victims of violent removal to Oklahoma under Andrew Jackson’s hard-lineIndianpolicyintheearly19thcentury,theChoctawwere devastatedbythemarchofwhiteconquest.Nowthetribehasmanaged to win a hard-earned measure of prosperity through its tribal gasstations,casinos,andotherbusinessventuresbringinginseveral hundred million dollars a year through an entrepreneurial brand of “reservationcapitalism.”ButLambert,Choctawherself,alsopointsto limitsinthisnativesuccessstory.U.S.Indianpolicydrawsastrict,sometimearbitrarylinebetweenfederally“recognized”and“unrecognized” tribes,thelatterwithoutanyrightstolandorsovereignty.Even“recognized”tribesliketheChoctawfindtheirauthorityfarmorerestricted thantheofficialgovernmentrhetoricofIndiansovereigntyandselfdeterminationallows.TheChoctawhavebeenunableeventosecure completerecognitionofwaterrightswithintheirowntribalterritorial boundaries.Choctawpovertyandunemploymentratesremainhigher thanthenationalaveragedespitethemajorrecentadvances(andin contrasttomistakenassumptionsthatmostorallofthemorethan 400casino-owningtribesintheUnitedStateshavesomehowbecome flushovernightwithglitzygamblingcash). MichaelBrown(thisvolume)observesthatsovereigntyhasbecome a crucial watchword in indigenous activism worldwide. But Brown questionsthisbroadtrendanditspossiblenegativeconsequencesfor socialchangeandjustice.Hepointstothedangerof“nativesovereignty” beinginvokedbytribestojustifydiscriminatorypoliciesasinoneNew Mexicopueblo’spolicyofdenyingtribalcitizenshiptothechildrenof womenwithnontribalmembersbutgrantingittothoseofmenwho marryoutsidethetribe.Thattribesmaybeexemptedfromfederallabor lawsalsoraisespotentialforabusesofworker’srightsatcasinosand otherreservationbusinesses.Brownalsoarguesthattheveryconceptof sovereigntyfailstoadmitthefluid,multiplexrealitiesofnativemobility
16
Marisol de la Cadena and Orin Starn
andculturalintermixture;itrestsinsteadonthemisleadingpremiseof stable,clear-cutcultural,ethnic,andterritorialboundariesandfixed, singularidentities.Suchassumptionsoverlookthatmanynon-natives liveonreservationsorothertriballycontrolledterritories,amongother potentialcomplicationstosimplevisionsofindigenousautonomyand self-determination(ValerieLambertnotesthatroughly90percentof thoselivingwithinChoctawtribalboundariesarenon-Indian,having marriedinorfromwhiteorAfricanAmericanfamilieswhohavelong residedthere).Brownremindsusthattheideaofsovereigntyderives inthefirstplacefromWesternandnotanynativepoliticalphilosophy. Perhaps,heconcludes,itshould“wingitswaybacktoitsbirthplacein thecheerlesscastlesofEurope.”15 Itmaybeusefultothinkofindigenoussovereigntyasahard-won politicalfeat,andyetalsoasasetofquestions.Istheproblemthelack ofrespectfornativesovereigntyastheChoctawexperiencesuggests? Oristheveryconceptsoflawedastobemoreobstaclethanhelpto indigenousstrugglesfordignityandjustice?Whatalternativeformsof politicalimaginationandorganizationmightbeworthconsidering? The Mohawk political scientist Taiaiake Alfred suggests, albeit very schematically, drawing on older indigenous traditions that rejected “absoluteauthority,”“coerciveenforcementdecisions,”andtheseparationofpoliticalrulefromotheraspectsofeverydaylife(2001:27). Others have called for a “decentered diverse democratic federalism” allowingforrealnativeautonomyandself-governmentyetwithoutany rigidseparatistagenda(Young2000:253).16Asmuchasindigeneityitself, thedebateaboutsovereigntyislinkedtosocialcontextandpolitical dynamics,andthereisno“disinterested”positionaboutitscontent andlimits.Thecomplex,contested,andoftenpowerfullyemotional questionsatstakeguaranteethatsovereigntywillcontinuetobeapplied andreworkedinmultiple,tense,andsometimescontradictoryways.
IndigeneityBeyondBorders Conventionalthinkingaboutindigenousgroupsstilloftenassumesthe stable,continuousoccupationofasingleterritory.WhatDonaldMoore (2004)calls“theethnospatialfix”canoccludethecentralityofuprooting and displacement in indigenous experience, and the vicissitudes of beingroundedup,confined,andmarchedtonew,lessdesirablecorners oftheearth.TheCherokeeweredrivenfromthesoutheasternUnited StatestoOklahomaontheTrailofTears(Ehle1988);theAustralian governmentshippedaboriginalchildrentoboardingschoolshalfway
Introduction 17
acrossthecountrytolearn“civilized”ways(HumanRightsandEqual OpportunityCommission1997);theauthoritarianpostcolonialregime inZimbabwe“resettled”rebellioustribalgroupsinnew“model”villages (Moore 2004). Even earlier, chronologically speaking, forastero (foreigner)wasaSpanishcoloniallabelforindigenousAndeanvillagers wholefthometoavoidtributeandforcedlaborobligations;butthese migrants very often maintained connections with their rural kin, or ayllu, and periodically returned to tend land and animals. These migrations, forced or voluntary, sometimes achieved intended ends ofassimilationandcontrol,buttheycouldalsofortifyoppositional feelings of victimization and solidarity or even generate new forms ofindigeneity.“Whatmadeusonepeopleisthecommonlegacyof colonialismanddiaspora”writesculturalcriticPaulChaatSmith(1994: 38)indescribinghow“Indian”becameasharedidentityfordiverse, widelyscatteredNativeNorthAmericantribesonlyintheaftermath ofEuropeanconquest. JamesClifford(thisvolume)speaksof“indigenousdiasporas.”He underlinesthatnativepeoplestodayarerarelyboundtoanyoneplace andthatgeographicmobilitywhetherforcedorchosenisnotarecent featureofindigeneity.Indigenouscosmopolitanismhasonlyincreased withthebordersbetweentribal“homeland”andurbancenter,home and away, here and there now crisscrossed everywhere by frequent travel,familyvisits,e-mail,textmessages,andphonecalls.“Acrossthe currentrangeofindigenousexperiences,”Cliffordsays,“identifications are seldom exclusively local or inward looking but, rather, work at multiplescalesofinteraction.” AsLouisaSchein(thisvolume)showsfortheHmong/Miao,thetrials oftrasnationalitycanpowernostalgiaforlosthomelands.TheHmong/ MiaodiasporastretchesfromChinatoLaos,Thailand,Vietnamand overseastoNorthAmerica,includingsome200,000refugeesarrivingto California,Minnesota,andotherpartsoftheUnitedStatesfollowingthe VietnamWar.TheirconditionofwhatScheincalls“chronicstatelessness” and minoritization is transected today by return visits and business ventures, remittances to poor kin back in Asia, and other forms of trans-Pacificinterconnectedness.AthrivingHmong/Miaovideo-making businessnowproduceshistoricalepicsaboutthetraumaoftheVietnam War and the longer history of Hmong/Miao loss and displacement. Thesevideosalsocatertoandstrengthenmigrantdesiresforanoften idealizedtraditionalpast.Foklorizedimagesofcountryfestivals,cherry blossoms and gurgling brooks, and costumed protagonists enact a “virtual or remote place-making” that answers to these longings for
18
Marisol de la Cadena and Orin Starn
“culturalcontinuity”and“fixedsignificance”(andsometimesplayto patriarchalmalefantasiesabouta“virginal,”“pure,”and“loyal”village femininity).LikeTibetans,theMiao-Hmonghavenotembracedthe discourse of indigeneity for reasons of their own. But Schein argues thatthose“diasporiclongingandthosechampioningpreservationof indigenouslifewaysarenotsofarapart.”Diasporicidentity,indigenous ornot,entailsameasureofmarginalityoratleastoff-centerednessin relationshiptorulingstates.Scheinsuggestsa“worldwidemalaisethat promptsthosewiththemeansofrepresentationtoofferrecuperations ofthetraditional,theuntouched,andthetimelessalongsidecautionary talesabouttoomuchintercoursewiththeoutside.” MichelleBigenho(thisvolume)exploresmusic’sroleinthetransnational cultural politics of indigeneity. She focuses on Andean musicasittravelsfromBoliviaandPerutoTokyoandbackhome.A nonindigenous Peruvian folklorist composed the famous, seemingly “indigenous” Andean anthem, El Cóndor Pasa; the U.S. megastars PaulSimonandArtGarfunkelmadeitintoaworldwidefolkhitlater in the 20th century. That rendition piqued the interest of Japanese musicians in Andean folk music in these zig-zagging global circuits inwhichnewinterestin“indigenousculturalreferences”cameabout partly“throughacircuitousrouteofforeignassociations.”Although donning ponchos, woven belts, and other “Indian” garb for their performances,themajorityofthetouringBolivianmusiciansBigenho describeswouldnotthemselvesidentifyasindigenousathome(andshe, aNorthAmerican,playedviolininthisgroup).Amixofessentialismand nostalgiaforitsownimagined“non-Western”pastheightensJapanese feelingsof“intimatedistance”withAndeanmusic.Bigenhobelieves themultiplexdesires,interests,andcontextsinsuchglobalcirculations ofindigeneitywarnagainstsimpledismissalsofthephenomenonas the “mere commodification of the exotic.” She worries nonetheless thatJapaneseinterestinBolivianmusicremainsatbest“disjointed” from any real engagement with Bolivia’s fraught history of poverty, discrimination,andstruggle.
TheBoundaryPoliticsofIndigeneity It should be evident that the boundaries between indigenous and nonindigenousspheresareamatterofhistoryandpolitics.Consider theUnitedStates.Inrecentdecades,variousfactorshavemadeitmore acceptable, even glamorous and exotic, to be Indian. In what Circe Sturmcalls“race-shifting”(2002),Americanshavebeguntoclaimtribal
Introduction 19
heritageina“migrationfromwhitenesstoredness.”Theincreasing numbersofthosechecking“AmericanIndian/AlaskaNative”onthe census box is one reason for strong Native American demographic growthinthelate20thcentury.Arethese“race-shifters”littlemore than“wannabes”withoutanyrealclaimtoindigenousidentity?Or does the turn to embrace Indianness measure recognition of native genealogies that earlier generations chose or were forced to deny in theageofassimilationism?Thesometimesvitriolicdebateaboutthese questionsunderlinesthevolatilityofthechangingboundarypolitics ofbelongingandexclusion. Weshouldalsorecallthatindigeneityoperateswithinlargerstructures of ethnicity and identification. “National formations of alterity,” as Claudia Briones (this volume) calls them, position native peoples within hierarchies of color, gender, generation, geography and class thatoperatetodifferentiatebetweenandwithingroups.Thestructure ofsocietyseldom,ifever,involvesaneatbinarybetweenindigenous peopleandcolonizersortheirdescendants—andevenlesssogiventhe frequentlinesoftensionandcleavagethatoftenexistamongdifferent groupsinanyparticularplace.17Formingpoliticalallianceswithinand acrossmultipledividescanbeadifficultendeavorwithunpredictable outcomes. TheexampleofIndiaillustratesthepitfalls,dilemmas,andvaried valencesofindigenousmobilization.Heretheinfluenceoftheglobal discourseofindigeneityhashelpedtogivethecategoryofadivasi,or tribalpeople,agrowingvisibilityinrecentyears.AsAmitaBaviskar(this volume)shows,thenewpoliticsofadivasiidentityinvokesaspectsof oldcolonialvisionsofthemas“uncivilized”exotic,loincloth-wearing forest peoples (and overlooks that many adivasi live now in cities andtowns).Thetrajectoryofadivasiorganizinghasalsobeenshaped by the changing dynamics of caste and modern state classificatory schemesaswellasthepowerfulsometimesdeadlyreligiousviolence and hatred pitting Hindus against Muslim. Baviskar shows how the image of “natural,” “ancestral” adivasi ties to the earth became a powerfulrallyingpointinthecourageousfightagainstthedestructive NarmadaValleydamproject.Butshealsonotesthemoreproblematic pathwaysofindigenousclaims,and,inparticular,howadivasishave sometimesjoinedHindusupremacistsinhatepoliticsandmassviolence againstMuslimminorities.Baviskarfurtherworriesthatdrawinglines between“tribal”peoplesandotherpoorIndians—alegacyofcolonial Britishsocialclassification—mayobstructeffortstomobilizeamore commonfrontforchangeinIndia.“Wecannotassume,”sheunderlines,
20
Marisol de la Cadena and Orin Starn
“that indigeneity is intrinsically a sign of subalternity or a mode of resistance.” ThepoliticsofindigeneityinpartsofAfricaalsoraisesverydifficult, critical questions about exclusion and inclusion, and the perils of socialboundarydrawinggoneawry.Colonialismanditsstrategiesof governance and classification imposed strict divisions both between EuropeansandAfricansandvarious“tribal”groups.Thenotoriouscase of apartheid South Africa involved an ideology of ethnic belonging that linked particular groups to strictly circumscribed, supposedly partly autonomous “homelands,” or “Bantutustans.” This Afrikaner socialengineeringrestrictedthemobilityofblackSouthAfricans,kept theminmarginalareas,anddeniedthemthevoteandfullnational citizenship.The1994Rwandangenocidepointstothemostextreme andperilouspotentialdeploymentsoftheidiomofindigeneity.There, Belgiancolonizershadhelpedtofosteraso-called“Hamitichypothesis” assertingTutsistohavemigratedtoRwandafromnorthernAfricawith Hutu as the real “autocthonous” inhabitants of the country. A view oftheTutsiasforeignusurpersunderlayHutuhatredthatledtothe slaughterofseveralhundredthousandTutsiwiththeUnitedStatesand therestoftheinternationalcommunityfailingtointervenetostopthe violence(Mamdani2002). AnthropologistFrancisNyamnjoh(thisvolume)examinescompetingnativistclaimsinBotswana.Althoughitseconomyhasprospered in recent decades, the country has witnessed growing tensions with competing tribal claims to “indigenous” occupation of the land. Thus,theBatswanamajoritydistinguishbetweenthemselvesasfully entitled “owners of the home (beng gae)” in relation to other tribal identitieslabeledas“close(Batswaka)”allthewaytoputativelymore recentlyarrived“outsiders(Makwerekwere).”Heretheclaimoffirstnessis deployedtolegitimatestratification,exclusion,andethnicdomination, no matter that it has no real historical basis of any kind. The most “indigenous”Botswanansbylongevityofoccupationwouldbethesocalled“Bushmen,”moreproperlycalledtheBaSarwa.Thesetraditionally hunter-gathererpeoplehaveinhabitedthecountry’sdesertsforatleast 2,000years.ButtheBaSarwahavevirtuallynovoiceunderacalculus ofbackwardnessandadvancementthatallowsfor“rightfulownership” onlybysettledfarmers.Nyamnjoharguesthatthisparticularbrand of indigeneity and nativism denies the hybrid, heterogeneous, and shiftingrealitiesofBotswananexperience.Prevailinginsteadarewhat he calls “ever-diminishing circles of inclusion.” Nymanjoh suggests theneedfora“flexibleindigeneity”thatwouldrecognizeandeven
Introduction 21
embrace the fact of multiple allegiances, geographical mobility, and entangledhistories. LindaTuhiwaiSmith(thisvolume)exploresthemorehopefulhistory ofNewZealand.TheThatcheresqueneoliberalmodelfirstimplemented inthemid–1980sdismantledNewZealand’swelfarestateinfavorof privatization,deregulation,andtheslashingofgovernmentprograms. ThesemeasuresthreatenedtoundermineMaoriorganizingthathad been gathering strength around protecting native rights accorded by the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi and Maori language revitalization. But many Maori had no love lost for the old welfare state with its dimensionsofpaternalism,condescension,andinsensitivitytonative concerns.AsTuhiwaiSmithshows,theytookadvantageof“pauses” and “spaces” in the emerging neoliberal order to further their own decolonizing agendas, especially in educational reform. New state policypromotedamoreentrepreneurial,market-basedmodelofschoolingthatforegrounded“schoolchoice”and“parentalcontrol.”Native activistsadoptedthislanguagetopresssuccessfullyforKaraKaupapa Maori,orMaorilanguageimmersionschools,andotheratleastpartial reforms to a formerly white-controlled, assimilation-minded educationalsystem. TuhiwaiSmithdrawslessonsfromNewZealandforthinkingabout indigeneityintheageofadvancedglobalcapitalism.Ifanuneasykindof multiculturalneoliberalismhasdevelopedthere,ithasdonesointhepush andpulloffamiliardominantideologiesoffreemarketsandindividual entrepreneurshipandthestruggleofMaoriactivistsforameasureof group rights and recognition. Multicultural neoliberal regimes have themselvesencouragedformsofcollectiveindigenoussubjectivityin otherpartsoftheworld.OnenotableexampleisBrazil,wherenewstate policiesgrantinglandrightstoindigenousandslavedescendantgroups havegivennewincentiveforcommunityidentificationandorganizing (French 2004). As Brazilian analyst Evelina Dagnino (2002) puts it, currentpoliticalprocessesaremarkedby“perverseconfluences”between neoliberalism and social justice activism. The relationship between neoliberalmodesofgovernmentalityandindigenousactivismisindeed atoncedeeplyintertwinedandmarkedbyfissures,disjunctures,and confrontationsofvariouskinds.TuhiwaiSmithnotesvariedobstacles in the Maori case including activist “burn out,” the temptations of assimilationism,andinternaldivisions.Shefindsevidenceevensoin NewZealandforhowmarginalizedgroupsmaybeabletofind“aspects ofneoliberalreformwithwhichcommunitiescanengageandcanfind groundtoshifttheagenda.”
22
Marisol de la Cadena and Orin Starn
IndigenousSelf-Representation,Nonindigenous Collaborators,andthePoliticsofKnowledge Wehaveheardrecentwarningsaboutthedangersofculturalcriticism and postcolonial theory. “Is it the duty of intellectuals to add fresh ruinstothefieldofruins?”asksBrunoLatour(2004:225).Itshouldbe obviousenoughthatthisbook’ssensibilitiesbeartheimprintofthe antifoundationalist agendas of various brands of poststructural and postcolonialtheorywiththeirsuspicionofpurityclaims,fixedborders, andsingularnarratives.Butourpurposeisnottodebunk,disable,or to play the tired role of the all-seeing critic who claims to see truth uncontaminated by illusion. Tracing the trajectories of indigeneity shouldbeaboutenablementandnotendlessdeconstruction.Weare motivatedbyanethicsofconcern,care,andaccountabilitytoformsof visionandorganizingthatembraceasituatedinterconnectivityinany worktowardsustainablefuturesandnewhorizonsofhope(Braidotti 2006).Aroleforcareful,engagedscholarshipcanbetocontributeto understandingandactivismthatrecognizestheparadoxes,limits,and possibilitiesofindigeneity’svariedvectorsinsteadoffallingbackinto tired,monologicalbrandsofessentializedanalysisandjudgment. Theverygroundofresearch,scholarshipandthepoliticsofknowledge hasbeenshiftinginotherways.Indigenousactivismhasbrokenupthe oldmonopolyofoutside“experts”onexplicatingthe“reality”about native life. Perhaps the single most publicized example of growing demandsfornativeself-representationhasbeenthebignewNational MuseumoftheAmericanIndian(NMAI)oftheSmithsonianInstitution. AsacuratoratthisnewestmuseumonthemallinWashington,D.C., PaulChaatSmith(thisvolume)offersaninsider’sviewofthechallenges ofputtingtogethertheexhibitsintimeforits2004opening.Inanolder day,anthropologistsandotherwhitesranmuseumswiththeirdioramas andexhibitsaboutnativelife.Thenative-curated,native-directedNMAI reflectsachangingeconomyofvisibility,money,andrepresentation. Chaat Smith underlines that these changes bring a whole new set of uncertainties and dilemmas into play—and that the stakes were heightenedattheNMAIbythe$300millionbudgetandequallylarge expectations.Whatabout“essentialistIndiangatekeepers”whomight want the museum to avoid history’s complexities? Could the NMAI developa“Simpsonsmodel”tomakethemuseumappealingtochildren while at the same time to adults through other, more sophisticated references,layers,anddoublemeanings?Andhowwouldthecurators deal with so many stories, languages, and ways of being that were
Introduction 23
lost for good in the storm of conquest? Chaat Smith describes the finalproductasamatterof“brilliantmistakes,”“realizeddreams,”and limitingconstraints.Self-representation,astheNMAIshows,isnever simpleorstraightforward—andevenlesssowhenthat“self”isagroup thathasalwaysbeeninternallydifferentiatedculturally,politically,and economically. Moreover, indigenous self-representation involves broad networks ofcollaborationthatincludepeoplesfrommanywalksoflife.Chaat Smith notes that non-native museum specialists and others were importantcollaboratorsattheNMAI,and,morebroadly,indigeneity hasalwaysinvolvedenunciation,bothconflictingandharmonizing, from indigenous and nonindigenous subject positions. This volume itself involves the collaboration of contributors writing from varied standpoints,indigenousandnot.Althoughsharingcommontraining inacademicidiomsandepistemologies,wealsocomefromdifferent disciplinary traditions: anthropology, geography, history, literature, andsociology.Ifeconomists,politicalscientists,ordemographershad been involved, this project would doubtless have had another cast. As annoying a buzzword as interdisciplinarity can sometimes be, the projectofworkingacrossandbeyondestablishedacademicboundaries remains full of potential. The larger promise lies in generating new, “undisciplined” forms of understanding and knowledge in the best senseoftheword(Escobarinpress). Thus, while recognizing that all knowledge is produced through vastcollaborativenetworks,itisvitaltorememberthatpoliticalnarratives—embedded in discourses of universal knowledge—work to makesomeactorsandtheirpracticesmorevisiblethanothers(Latour 1993). In her chapter in this volume, Julie Cruikshank analyzes the collaborationbetweenFirstNationindividualsintheYukonTerritory andarchaeologists,climatologists,physicists,andenvironmentalists— andherself,aculturalanthropologist—arisingfromconverginginterests inhistoriesandfactsaroundthemeltingglaciersofCanada’sSaintElias Mountains.Thiswork,Cruikshankobserved,althoughamicable,and indeedrespectfulofallpartsinvolved,wasentangledinthecomplex hegemonyofscientificknowledgeevenasitspractitionerswereaware oftheneed,andwilling,totakelocalstoriesintoconsideration.For example,inlocalAtapashkanandTinglitnarratives,glaciersfigureas sentientactorsinarelationalcosmologythatexplainsweatherchange andcolonialencounters,naturalandsocialhistory,inoneandthesame streamofthought.Ofsignificance,thesenarratives,notesCruikshank, “arecontinuouslymadeinsituationsofhumanencounter:between
24
Marisol de la Cadena and Orin Starn
coastalandinteriorneighbors,betweencolonialvisitorsandresidents, andamongcontemporaryscientists,managers,environmentalists,and FirstNations.”Includedinthecollaborationarewell-meaningdefinitions ofindigenousknowledgethatimaginetheselocalstoriesasabundleof mythandwisdomhandeddownunchangedacrossthegenerations. ThetaskofWesternscientists(ofanysort)thenbecomesto“discover” suchknowledge,extricatingitas“information”andthusdisregarding storytelling as a historical form of knowledge that changes—just as sciencedoes—withthecircumstances.Suchproblematictreatmentof storytelling transmogrifies completely contemporary interpretations intofixed,dehistoricizedcultural“data”putativelytransmittedby“the vesselofculture”topresentdaypeople—whothereforebelongtoour past.Thecolonialityofindigeneity,Cruikshankremindsus,maybe reinforcedbyhierarchiesofknowledgeeveninseeminglyprogressive contexts. LikeCruikshank,manyofushavealsobeeninvolvedinformsof collaborationinvolvingbothacademicandnonacademicintellectuals (e.g.,delaCadena2006;TuhiwaiSmith1999).Wewanttocallattention totheprofoundasymmetriesorganizingsuchcollaboration—whichstart withinequalitiesofgeography,economy,race,andgenderbutgofar beyond,rightintotheheartoftheknowledge-productionventureitself. AsTalalAsadwrotemorethan20yearsago,languagesarestructurally imbuedwithdifferentiatedpower,andthisaffectstheproductionof knowledge.“Westernlanguages,”hewrote,“produceanddeploydesired knowledgemorereadilythanThirdWorldlanguagesdo.”Conversely, “theknowledgethatThirdWorldlanguagesdeploymoreeasilyisnot sought by Western societies in quite the same way, or for the same reason”(Asad1986:162). More recently, Dipesh Chakrabarty has called this condition one of“asymmetricignorance.”Speakingabouthisdiscipline,history,he writes:“ThirdworldhistoriansfeelaneedtorefertoworksinEuropeanhistory;historiansofEuropedonotfeelanyneedtoreciprocate” (Chakrabarty 2000: 28). An analogy can be drawn with almost any discipline—anthropologyobviouslyincluded.Ideologicalcoincidences, althoughhelpfulinjointpoliticalventures,donotalterthestructural andhistoricalasymmetriesthatorganizecollaborativeeffortsamong “Europeans” and “non-Europeans” broadly understood. Images of smooth,equalparticipationinresearchventures,ascomfortingasthey be,arehardtoachieveandasoftenasnotawell-intendedacademic illusion.Collaborationswantingtoundopreexistingepistemicinstitutionsandhierarchies—includingthosethathavehistoricallyseparated
Introduction 25
Westernandnon-Westernspheresofknowledgeandtheirlanguages —require more than desire for horizontal work relations; it requires awarenessofthehegemonyofestablishedepistemologies,andtheneed atleasttoquestionthem.Italsodemandsconstantmultidirectional negotiationaswellasrecognitionandinspectionoftheconflictsthat giveraisetosuchnegotiation.Last,althoughthisshouldbethestarting pointaswell,collaborationalsorequirestheacceptancethatcomplex entanglements of power will always structure the relationship— although,ofcourse,theentanglementwillconstantlyshiftformsand connections.Inallthesemayliepotentialforadifferentwayoflaboring, whichcouldproducenewsvisionsofreality,newconceptsemerging fromthosevisions—inwhich“new”doesnotmean“movingforward,” but moving in any direction, differently. Such work would seek to change knowledge production through, for example, hybrid genres simultaneouslyacademicandnonacademic,localanduniversal,and committed to blurring the boundaries between these spheres while interveninginthemall. Buttheseremainfragileemergentideasandheterotopias,available forexploration.Thechaptersthatfollowexploreindigeneity’slinesof containmentandflightintothisearly21stcenturypresent.Wehope theymayalsobeofsomevalueinthinkingtowardthefutureandits limitsandpossibilities.
Notes Acknowledgments. We are deeply grateful for the extensive, insightful commentsofClaudiaBriones,ArturoEscobar,RichardFox,CharlesHale,Donald Moore,BenOrlove,EduardoRestrepo,andRandolphStarnonearlierdraftsof thisintroduction.KristinaLyons,ananthropologystudentattheUniversity of California, Davis, shared her insights about this volume, translated from Spanish,andhelpedusputthismanuscriptinorder.Twoanonymousreaders for the Wenner-Gren Foundation also provided useful feedback. Ya ChungChuang,ValerieLambert,FrancescaMerlan,andLindaRupertmadeimportantsuggestions;sodidmembersofthe“DiasporaandIndigeneity”Franklin HumanitiesInstituteseminaratDukeUniversity.Wealsothankourcolleagues at the “Indigenous Experience Today” symposium in Rivarotta di Pasiano, Italy,March18–25,2005.Responsibilityfortheargumentsandanyerrorsin whatfollowsisentirelyourown.
26
Marisol de la Cadena and Orin Starn
1. Starn (2004) explores the brutal extermination of one native society, California’sYahi,andthestoryofitslastsurvivor,Ishi. 2. See the website of Survival International (www.survival-international. org)formoreonthesefigures.Ofcourse,calculatinganytotaldependsvery much on the tricky question of who should be counted as “indigenous” in thefirstplace,aquestiontakenupinthisintroductionandthroughoutthe volume. 3. OtherKaktovikmiutopposeoildrillinginANWR. 4. SeetheOxfordEnglishDictionary(n.d.)forindigenous. 5. TheFrazerquoteappearsinStocking1995. 6. These populations were regarded as “indigenous” following their occupation of the country prior to the time “of conquest or colonization” (Thornberry2003). 7. SeeOfficeoftheHighCommissionerforHumanRights1989. 8. SeeBBCWorld2006. 9. Thewritersaid:“ItisveryinterestingforanIndianwithoutresentments, withoutcomplexes,withoutscornfulnesstooccupythePresidency[ofPeru].” InterviewbyJoaquínIbarz,DiarioLaVanguardia,Barcelona,April,6,2001. 10. SeeAhun.d. 11. Stoll (1999) charged Menchú with making up part of her story; for a widerangeofviewsonthecontroversy,seeArias(2001). 12. This is the translation we believe best captures Quijano’s original phrasinginSpanish—“popularizarloindígenaeindigineizarlopopular.”See alsoGarcíaLinera(2006). 13. De la Cadena (2000) explores the politics of indigeneity, race, and culture in the Cuzco region of Peru; Starn (1999) does so in the context of northernPeru. 14. Cruikshanktakesthephrase“dwellingperspective”fromtheworkof TimothyIngold(2000). 15. Sheehan(2006)offersausefuloverviewofthequestionofsovereignty inEuropeanhistory. 16. We are grateful to Michael Brown for the citations here, and he discussestheworkofAlfredandYoungmoreextensivelyinhischapterinthis volume. 17. Onlyquiterecentlyhavescholarsbeguntoexamineintheinterlocking formsofdiscriminationandintimateconnectionamongAfricanAmericans, Indians, and whites in the United States (Brooks 2002). New work about the sometimes-tense relationships between Chinese and Sikh migrants and Aborigines has added another level of complexity to ways of narrating Australianhistoryasjustamatterofwhiteconquest(DeLepervanche1984; Reynolds2003).
Introduction 27
References Adas,Michael.1979.ProphetsofRebellion:Millenarianprotestmovements againsttheEuropeanorder.ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolina Press. Ahu, Te. n.d. The evolution of contemporary Maori Protest. Electronicdocument,http://aotearoa.wellington.net.nz/back/tumoana, accessedJuly27,2005. Alfred, Taiaiake. 2001. From sovereignty to freedom: Towards an Indigenouspoliticaldiscourse.IndigenousAffairs3:22–34. Arias,Arturo,ed.2001.TheRigobertaMenchúcontroversy.Minneapolis: UniversityofMinnesotaPress. Asad,Talal.1986.TheConceptofCulturalTranslationinBritishSocial Anthropology.InWritingculture:Thepoeticsandpoliticsofethnography, editedbyJamesCliffordandGeorgeE.Marcus,141–164.Berkeley: UniversityofCaliforniaPress. BBC World. 2006. Vargas Llosa: “Un nuevo racismo.” Electronic document,http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/latin_america/newsid_ 4633000/4633898.stm,accessedDecember20,2006. Braidotti, Rosi. 2006. Transpositions: On nomadic ethics. Cambridge: PolityPress. Brooks,JamesF.,ed.2002.Confoundingthecolorline:TheIndian-Black experienceinNorthAmerica.Lincoln:UniversityofNebraskaPress. Brysk,Allison.2000.Fromtribalvillagetoglobalvillage:Indianrightsand internationalrelationsinLatinAmerica.Stanford:StanfordUniversity Press. Butler,Judith.1993.Bodiesthatmatter:Onthediscursivelimitsof“sex.” NewYork:Routledge. Chakrabarty,Dispesh.2000.ProvincializingEurope.Postcolonialthought andhistoricaldifference.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress. Chung-min, Chen, Chuang Ying-chang, Huang Shu-min, eds. 1994. EthnicityinTaiwan:Social,historicalandculturalperspectives.Taipei: InstituteofEthnology,AcademiaSinica. Dagnino,Evelina.2002.SociedadecivileespañospúblicosnoBrasil.Sáo Paulo:PazeTerra. delaCadena,Marisol.2000.Indigenousmestizos:Thepoliticsofraceand culture in Cuzco, Peru, 1919–1991. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. ——.2006.Aremestizoshybrids?TheconceptualpoliticsofAndean identities.JournalofLatinAmericanStudies37:250–284. DeLepervanche,MarieM.1984.IndiansinawhiteAustralia:Anaccount ofrace,class,andIndianimmigrationtoEasternAustralia.Sydney:Allen andUnwin.
28
Marisol de la Cadena and Orin Starn
Ehle,John.1988.Trailoftears:TheriseandfalloftheCherokeeNation. NewYork:Doubleday. Escobar, Arturo. in press. Places and regions in the global age: Social movements and biodiversity conservation in the Colombian Pacific. Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress. Frazer,JamesG.1931[1888].Garneredsheaves.London:nopublisher. French, Jan. 2004. Mestizaje and law making in indigenous identity formation in northeastern Brazil. American Anthropologist 106 (4): 663–674. García,MaríaElena.2005.MakingIndigenouscitizens:Identities,education, andmulticulturaldevelopmentinPeru.Stanford:StanfordUniversity Press. GarcíaLinera,Alvaro.2006.ElEvismo:Lonacional-popularenacción. InObservatoriosocialdeAméricaLatina,vol.6,no.19,July.Buenos Aires:CLACSO. Guha,Ramachandra.1989.RadicalAmericanenvironmentalismand wildernesspreservation:AThirdWorldcritique.EnvironmentalEthics 11(1):71–83. Hale,Charles.2006.MásqueunIndio:Racialambivalenceandneoliberal multiculturalisminGuatemala.SantaFe:SchoolofAmericanResearch Press. Hall,Stuart.1996.Whoneedsidenitity?InQuestionsofculturalidentity, editedbyStuartHallandPaulduGay,1–17.London:Sage. Hodgson, Dorothy L. 2001. Once intrepid warriors: Gender, ethnicity, andtheculturalpoliticsofMasaidevelopment.Bloomington:Indiana UniversityPress. HumanRightsandEqualOpportunityCommission.1997.Bringingthem home:Reportofthenationalinquiryintotheseparationofaboriginaland TorresStraitIslanderchildrenfromtheirfamilies.Sydney:HumanRights andEqualOpportunityCommission. Ingold,Tim.2000.Theperceptionoftheenvironment.London:Routledge. Kirsch,Stuart.2001.LostWorlds:EnvironmentDisaster,“CultureLoss” andtheLaw.CurrentAnthropology42(2):167–198. Kymlicka,Will.2001.Politicsinthevernacular:Nationalism,multiculturalism andcitizenship.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. Latour,Bruno.1993.Wehaveneverbeenmodern.Cambridge,MA:Harvard UniversityPress. ——.2004.Whyhascritiquerunoutofsteam?Frommattersoffactto mattersofconcern.CriticalInquiry30(2):225–248. Li,TaniaMurray.2000.ArticulatingindigenousidentityinIndonesia: Resourcepoliticsandthetribalslot.ComparativeStudiesinSocietyand History42(1):149–179.
Introduction 29
Mamdani,Mahmood.2002.Whenvictimsbecomekillers:Colonialism, nativism,andthegenocideinRwanda.Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press. ——.2004. Race and Ethnicity as Political Identities in the African Context. In Keywords: identity, edited by N. Tazi, 1–24. New York: OtherPress. Moore, Donald. 2004. Suffering for territory: Race, place, and power in Zimbabwe.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress. Mouffe,Chantal.2005.Onthepolitical.London:Routledge. Niezen,Ronald.2000.TheoriginsofIndigenism:Humanrightsandthe politicsofidentity.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Once Were Warriors. 1994. Lee Tamahori, director. 99 min. Fine Line Features. OfficeoftheHighCommissionerforHumanRights.1989.Convention (No.169)concerningIndigenousandTribalPeoplesinIndependentCountries.Electronicdocument,http://193.194.138.190/html/ menu3/b/62.htm,accessedDecember12,2006. OxfordEnglishDictionary.n.d.Electronicdocument,http://dictionary. oed.com/cgi/entry/50115329?query_type=word&queryword=in digenous&first=1&max_to_show=10&single=1&sort_type=alpha, accessedXXXX. Piot, Charles. 1999. Remotely global: Village modernity in West Africa. Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. Postero,Nancy,andLeonZamosc.2004.ThestruggleforIndigenousrights inLatinAmerica.Brighton:SussexAcademicPress. Quijano, Aníbal. 2006. Keynote address at Congreso Internacional de PueblosIndígenasdeAmericaLatina,July15,Cuzco,Peru. Ramos, Alcida. 1998. Indigenism: Ethnic politics in Brazil. Madison: UniversityofWisconsinPress. Reynolds,Henry.2003.NorthofCapricorn:TheuntoldstoryofAustralia’s North.Crow’sNest,NewSouthWales:AllenandUnwin. Sheehan,James.2006.TheproblemofsovereigntyinEuropeanhistory. AmericanHistoricalReview111(1):1–15. Smith,LindaTuhiwai.1999.Decolonizingmethodologies:Researchand Indigenouspeoples.London:Zed. Smith,PaulChaat.1994.HomeoftheBrave.CMagazine(Summer): 32–42. Smith, Paul Chaat, and Robert Allen Warrior. 1996. Like a hurricane: TheIndianmovementfromAlcatraztoWoundedKnee.NewYork:Free Press. Starn,Orin.1999.Nightwatch:ThepoliticsofprotestintheAndes.Durham, NC:DukeUniversityPress.
30
Marisol de la Cadena and Orin Starn
——.2004.Ishi’sbrain:InsearchofAmerica’slast“Wild”Indian.New York:W.W.Norton. Stocking,GeorgeW.1995.AfterTylor.BritishSocialAnthropology1888– 1951.Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress. Stoler,Ann.2002.Carnalknowledgeandimperialrule:Raceandtheintimate incolonialrule.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Stoll,David.1999.RigobertaMenchúandthestoryofallpoorGuatemalans. Boulder,CO:WestviewPress. Sturm,Circe.2002.Bloodpolitics:Race,culture,andidentityintheCherokee nationofOklahoma.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Thomson,Sinclair.2003.Wealonewillrule:NativeAndeanpoliticsinthe ageofinsurgency.Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress. Thornberry,Patrick.2003.Indigenouspeopleandhumanrights.Manchester: ManchesterUniversityPress. Toulabor,Comi.1985.LeTogosousEyeadema.Dakar:Karthala. Trouillot,Michel-Rolph.1991.TheSavageSlot:ThePoeticsandPolitics ofOtherness.InRecapturinganthropology:Workinginthepresent,edited by Richard G. Fox, 17–44. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Tsing,Anna.2005.Friction:Anethnographyofglobalconnection.Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress. Tully, James. 1995. Strange multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an age of diversity.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Tylor,E.B.1903.PrimitiveCulture.4thedition.2Vols.London:John Murray. VanCott,Donna.2000.Thefriendlyliquidationofthepast:Thepoliticsof diversityinLatinAmerica.Pittsburgh:UniversityofPittsburghPress. Wachman, Alan. 1994. Taiwan: National identity and democratization. Armonk:M.E.Sharpe. TheWhaleRider.2003.NikiCaro,dir.101min.NewmarketFilms. Williams, Raymond. 1977. Marxism and literature. New York: Oxford UniversityPress. Young,IrisMarion.2000.HybridDemocracy:IroquoisFederalismand thePostcolonialProject.InPoliticaltheoryandtherightsofIndigenous peoples, edited by Duncan Ivison, Paul Patton, and Will Sanders, 237–258.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Part 1 Indigenous Identities, Old and New
This page intentionally left blank
o n e
Indigenous Voice Anna Tsing
T
heglobalindigenousmovementisalivewithpromisingcontradictions.Invertingnationaldevelopmentstandards,itpromisesunity basedonplurality:diversitywithoutassimilation.Itendorsesauthenticity andinvention,subsistenceandwealth,traditionalknowledgeandnew technologies,territoryanddiaspora.1Theexcitementofindigenousrights claimsdrawsfromthecreativepossibilitiesofsuchjuxtapositions. Yet,giventhisheadybrew,itisperhapsnotsurprisingthatscholars havehadmixedreactions.2Someareexcitedbythestruggleagainst discrimination,violence,andresourcetheft.Othersaresuspiciousof thesupportofneoliberalreformersandthemovement’sinattention toclass.Somenotecontinuitieswithcolonialdiscoursesofraceand culturalessence.Otherscelebrateculturalrevitalization.Meanwhile, bothboostersandcriticstendtobasetheirevaluationsononeoftwo researchmodels:eithercasestudies,withtheirplethoraofdistinguishing particulars,orgeneralizationsaboutindigeneityatlarge.Collections continuetostringtogethercaseswiththeassumptionofcommonality; analysissearchesforfundamentalprincipleswithoutattentiontothe historiesthatmakesuchprinciplesmoreorlessrelevant.Bothmodels reduceindigeneitytoasingularsetoflogicsanddilemmas.Whether theybasetheircommentaryonsinglecasesorongeneralizationsabout allindigeneity,mostscholarlyreportshaveshownlittlecuriosityabout thediversityofindigenousproblems,rhetorics,andcauses.Thoseof uswhoenterthefieldtounderstandhowtheobscureethnographic situationweknowbestfitsintoglobalmobilizationsareofferedfew cluesaboutdivergenthistoriesandconflictingclaims.Inresponse,this chapterbeginsthetaskoflayingoutahistoricallyconcretehistoryof divergentindigeneities.
33
34
Anna Tsing
My method abandons neither place-based particularity nor the links across places. Instead of imagining links only as a route to homogenization, however, I highlight the friction that creates both gripandgaps,bothmisunderstandingsandcommonground.Inthis spirit,Ibeginmystorywiththedynamicsofindigeneityinoneplace, Indonesia,andusethequestionsraisedfromthatsituationtoguide mywiderinquiry.3 Indigeneity is not a self-evident category in Indonesia. Almost everyoneis“indigenous”inthesenseofderivingfromoriginalstocks; Indonesiaisnotawhitesettlerstate.Yetactivistsandcommunityleaders fightingfortherightsofmarginalruralcommunitieshaveincreasingly usedtherhetoricofindigeneitytodrawattentiontotheircauses.In both cities and villages this rhetoric engenders debate; it is difficult toconsider“indigenousrights”withoutrunningintodisagreements about terms. This situation stimulates me to begin with talk about indigeneity,ratherthanjumpingimmediatelytoindigenousexperience. Italsopressesmetoconsiderhowthenationalpoliticalscene—withits culturalformsanditspotentialalliances—structuresindigenousclaims. AsIturnfromIndonesiatotraceindigenousrhetoricsmorewidely,I thusattendtohownations,andthedialoguesbetweennations,shape indigenousvoices.Inthesetransnationaldialogues,powerfultraveling axesofindigenousconcernareformed. Ibegin,then,withIndonesia,beforeturningtomygeneralthesis.
TranslationQuestions InIndonesia,thephraseusedasanequivalentfor“indigenouspeoples” is masyarakat adat. However, the effective translation of the transnational indigenous movement goes beyond the problem of words. ManyIndonesiansopposeactivistattemptstosingleoutcertainrural communitiesasdeservingofspecialrights.NationalisminIndonesia runs strong, and the directive to blend cultural communities into a commonnation—“fromthemany,one”4—isstillamongthemoreprogressiveprogramsofIndonesiannationalism.Incontrast,thedivision ofthenationintoethniccommunitiesisseenasaheritageofcolonial “divideandrule”policies. It is hard to deny that the separation of cultural minorities and majorities throughout Asia and Africa was, and continues to be, a colonialhabit.TheuseofSoutheastAsianmountainpeoplebyU.S. imperialforcesinIndochinaservesasanimportantreminderofthe colonialhistoryofnurturingloyaltribes.Internationalidentification
IndigenousVoice 35
of“indigenouspeoples”inAsiaandAfricacontinuestofollowcolonial linesofseparation,singlingoutminoritiesforinternationalprotection because they are willing to oppose Muslims, Chinese, and other imagined enemies of the West. In Indonesia, the phrase masyarakat adat,“traditionalsocieties,”derivesitspunchfromcolonialprecedent. Dutchscholarselevatedadat,perhapsbesttranslatedas“custom,”to the status of customary law. The notion of adat as law allowed the colonialargumentthatIslamwasaforeignreligionthatshouldnotbe allowedtodefinenativelife.Atthesametime,italsoinformedthose Dutchmenwhoopposedcolonialprogramsthatthreatenedtoplow over all native social forms. Dutch colonial authorities set up adat law courts in only a few places; in terms of power and policy, adat was effective mainly as an idea about native difference and, at least potentially,nativerights.Intheearlyindependenceperiod,nationalists developedcontrastingattitudestowardtheideaofadat:Somerejected itasarchaic;othersembraceditasthespiritofthenation.Duringthe NewOrderregime(1969–98),adatwasknownthroughgovernment programs to depoliticize rural citizens through token recognition of harmlessculturalforms.WhenIndonesianenvironmentalandhuman rightsactivistsofthe1980sand1990sdecidedtorevivetheconceptof adatasatoolfortheempowermentofruralcommunities,theyhadto carry—andtransform—thiscomplexandcontradictoryhistory.5 In 1999, the first archipelago-wide assembly of masyarakat adat was held in Jakarta. The alliance formed from this meeting, Aliansi MasyarakatAdatNusantara(AMAN),endorsesregionalcampaignsand workstoseeIndonesiaincludedininternationalindigenousorganizing. YettheemergenceofAMANhassharpenedIndonesiandebatesabout whether indigenous organizing is a good idea.6 Most government officialsarguethattheinternationalindigenousmovementisirrelevantbecausethereareno“indigenouspeoples”inIndonesia.Theyfind common cause with urban professionals who worry about dividing the nation and imagine modernization as the key force for nationbuilding.Some,includingmainstreamconservationists,describeadat as“inventedtradition”withoutstabilityorlegitimacy.Manyforeign scholarsandinternationaldonoragenciesopposetheideaofworkingfor communalrights,whichtheyseeasdangerouslyexclusive.Supporters ofliberalindividualismjointhem,asdothoseconcernedwithethnic violence.Inrecentyears,Indonesiahasbeentornbyethnicandreligious conflicts,manysponsoredsurreptitiouslybythearmy.InKalimantan, forexample,“indigenous”DayaksclashedwithmigrantMaduresein 1997, 2000, and 2001. It was hard to deny that the mobilization of
36
Anna Tsing
DayakidentityhadbeensupportedbyinternationallyconnectedNGOs. Fewblamedinternationalindigenouspoliticsdirectlyfortheviolence, but new questions have been raised. For example, there is cause to worryabouttheroleoftransnationalChristiancharitiesinpromoting violencetogetherwithindigenousrights.WhereverChristianssupport minoritycultures,missionizationandhumanrightsbecomehopelessly intertwined;anti-Muslimviolenceisanexpectableoutcome.Religious rageneednotbeconfusedwithrevolutionaryarmedstruggle.Butit isworthnotingthatwhereIndonesiancommunitieshaveturnedto revolutionarytactics,theyhavequestionedorrefusedtheindigenous slot.InAcehandWestPapua,activistswantindependencenotdependent sovereignty;theyfindbetterroutestomaketheirclaimsthanindigenous politics.7 AllofthispointstotheimpossibilityofanIndonesianindigenous politics that can promote social justice, and, yet, those who jump tothisconclusionomitthemajorreasonforIndonesianindigenous organizing.Thosecommunitiesthathaveplacedtheirhopesinthe internationalindigenouslabeldosobecausetheirlandandresources arethreatenedbycorporateandstateexpansion.Indeed,thedestruction of the countryside, with its once vast rainforests, bountiful fishing waters, and richly endowed legacies of culture and community, is themajorproblemconfrontingIndonesiatoday.Thepoliciesofthe NewOrderregime,whichopenedthecountrysideasa“free”spaceof exploitation,allowedcomplementaryordersofillegalandlegalresource thefttopileatopeachother.InKalimantan,thedestructiveforceof illegalandlegalloggingandminingtearsthecountrysideapart;few bureaucrats or community leaders can think of much to do except clamorforashareofthespoils.Theclaimthatruralcommunitiesmight haverightsbasedintheirtraditionalculturesisoneofthefewinterruptionsofadeadlybusinessasusual.Evenifthisclaimisultimately unsuccessfulinremakingnationalandinternationalpolicy,itisworth ourattention. Affiliation with international indigenous politics for this claim follows from a layered history. Colonial administration divided the archipelagointo“inner”and“outer”zoneswithdenselypopulatedJava atthecenterofconcernsaboutthegovernanceofnativepeople.The “outer”islandsofSumatra,Kalimantan,Sulawesi,andEasternIndonesia were interesting to colonial authorities mainly for entrepreneurial development;thenativepeoplewererelevantonlyasexotica.Colonially subjugatedJavabecamethecenterofthenationaliststruggle,andthe storyofalliancebetweenJavanesepeasantsandnationalistelitesmade
IndigenousVoice 37
the nation seem possible. In the early years of independence, nonJavaneseelitesbecameincreasinglyimportanttonation-building,and afewouterislandgroupsgainedprominence.Mostruralcommunities intheouterislands,however,werenationallyinvisible.Onlyduring theNewOrderregimeweretheouterislandstargeted—inpoliciesof increasinglymassiveresourceexploitation.ThepolicyofignoringnonJavanese rural communities facilitated such resource theft. But this meant that rural protest from the outer islands found no channels in national politics. Only the formation of a social justice–oriented environmentalmovementinthelate1970sand1980sbroughtouterislandruralcomplaintstonationalattention. DuringmuchoftheNewOrderregime,socialprotestwascensored, andtheenvironmentalmovementwasoneofthefewsitesforpublic discussionofjustice.Inthelate1980sandearly1990s,thenational environmental movement carried the weight of many progressive hopes.Forthemovementtoendorsetherightsofnon-Javaneserural communities was an extraordinary political innovation; it brought peoplewhohadbeenhistoricallyexcludedintothenationalpolitical processforthefirsttime.Ironically,afterthemuch-anticipatedfallofthe NewOrderregimein1998,thenationalenvironmentalmovementlost visibility,andinternationalconservationists,withtheirlaw-and-order nature protection, gained prominence. In this context international affiliationshaveseemedmorecrucialthanevertoIndonesianactivists. Tosaythatmasyarakatadatare“indigenouspeoples”launcheshopes thatinternationallegitimacywillgivesomeforcetotheircomplaints aboutlandandresourcetheft.OneinfluentialJakartaactivistexplained tomethatherdefinitionofmasyarakatadat,theindigenouspeoplesof Indonesia,wasruralcommunitiesfightingresourcecorporations. Boththeforceandtheidiosyncracyofthisdefinitionraisesquestions about the transnational field in which “indigenous peoples” has emerged.CanIndonesianactivistseffectivelyallywithtransnational indigenous peoples? After all, some indigenous peoples—such as those caught up in the U.S. Alaska Native Claims Act—are resource corporations.Others,suchasthosewhocontrolGreenlandHomeRule, mimicnation-statesintheirresourcemanagementplans.Withwhat strength—andwhathesitations—isglobalindigeneitylinkedtosocial justiceenvironmentalism? FindingmyselfinthemidstofdebatesaboutIndonesianindigenous politics,Ihaveturnedtocomparativereadingsinindigeneitytofind moreaboutthefield.Yetcomparativeexercisesaredangerous;theytempt ustoassumeanimperialperspective:theviewfromglobalmanagement.
38
Anna Tsing
Ihavepresentedthislongprologuetosuggestanotherreasonforglobal mapping:toconsiderhowagivensetofemergenttacticsmightthrive orfailintransnationalencounters.Ifweareinvolvedinthepolitics ofparticularplaces,weneedsomesenseofhowtheplansweadvocate articulatewithothers. Globalindigenouspoliticsisexcitingandchallengingbecauseofits diversity.Itsstrengthisitsrefusalofpregivenpoliticalcategories—and itsrefusaltobackdowntodemandsforstrictdefinitions.Almostevery internationalprojecthasadheredtotheideathatindigenouspeoples willnotbepredefined.AsaCreespokespersonfortheInternational WorkingGroupforIndigenousAffairsputit,“Toassumearighttodefine indigenouspeoplesistofurtherdenyourrightofself-determination” (Thornberry2002:60).Mostconventionally,internationalindigenous spokespeople point to the necessity for self-identification. But selfidentificationsometimesleadstomorelayersofcontradiction.Consider Central America. Quetzil Castaneda has proposed “We are not indigenous!”asarallyingcryforMayapeasantsoftheYucatan,who refuseidentitypolitics(2004).InElSalvador,BrandtPetersonhasargued that ethnic self-identity exists in a violent gap within speakability; historicallyonlyenemieshaveusedthetermindio,andactivistsare frustratedbythelowlevelsofinterestcommunitieshaveshownfor explicitly“indigenous”programs(Peterson2005). Contradictoryattitudesaboutbeinglabeledindigenousleadtotwo quitedifferentanalyticissues.First,allcategoriesarousevariedreactions for the people called to those categories. People whom others label woman, black, or liberal are equally divided and ambivalent. Such issues deserve an analysis of the complex histories of making and claimingidentities.Thisisimportantwork,butitisnotmyconcern inthischapter.Instead,Itrackvariationsinthepublicarticulationof indigeneityindifferentplaces.Ifollownottheambivalenceofordinary people but the claims of those who set the terms of discussion—for example,activists,communityleaders,andpublicintellectuals.Their claimsbecomeinfluentialdiscursiveframestotheextenttheycangain bothafollowingandanaudience.Theseframesinformwhatonemight call“indigenousvoice.”Byvoice,Iamreferringtothegenreconventions withwhichpublicaffirmationsofidentityarearticulated.Becauseitis thegenreconvention,notthespeakerhimorherself,thathaspower, totallyunknownpeoplecanspeakwiththiskindofvoice;buttheymust speakinawayanaudiencecanhear.Atreethatfallsinanemptyforest hasnovoiceinthissense;myrandomcomplaintssimilarlyhaveno voice.OnlywhenIfindawaytospeakthatarticulatesmycomplaints
IndigenousVoice 39
inapubliclyrecognizablegenrecanIgainvoice.Whatcanbeheard changes.Novoicesclaimallaudiences.Yetitseemsanalyticallyuseful to separate diversity in the public voice of indigeneity from other kindsofindigenousdiversity.Therestofthischapterinvestigatesthe historical conditions in which a transnational indigenous voice has gainedmomentum.
Thesis:Cross-NationalLinksInform TransnationalFora Themeaningofthephrase“indigenouspeoples,”initslocaltranslations, variesnationallyaswellasregionally.Thecontrastsarestriking;some versions are contradictory; not all become globally influential. For a particular version of indigeneity to become a transnational model requires linking across national contexts. This linking can amplify indigenousclaimsinboththeplacesbeinglinkedand,thusamplified, makeitswayintotheworld.Inothercases,thelinkexistsonlyfrom theperspectiveofonenation;intheothernation,nooneisevenaware thatalinkwasmade.Yet,despitethisasymmetry,suchlinkingmay allowtheformationofapowerfultravelingmodel.Travelingmodels of indigeneity have spread conventions of international indigenous politics. Because they are not readily adapted to every national and regional context, they have also formed nodes of dissension. The inapplicabilityofpowerfulframesfortheindigenousopensspacesof refusal—andofpotentialbreaksandalliances. Nationalvariationinthemeaningof“indigenous”isstructuredby theexigenciesofpolicyandpolitics.Nation-statepolicieshaveeverywherecreatedtheconditionsforindigenouslives.Ifthenation-state moves people into reservations, then the fight must continue from thereservation.Ifthenation-staterequiresassimilation,thendebates will emerge from within the apparatus of assimilation. The form of indigeneityinaparticularplacecannotbedivorcedfromthesehistories ofnationalclassificationandmanagement.Furthermore,indigenous protestsmustspeaktoanationalaudience.Despitetheimportanceof globalconnections,thenationcontinuestobethelocusofpolitical negotiationinmostplaces.Tomakeapoliticaldifference,indigenous leaders must address the nation-state. They must use cultural and politicalframesthatarecomprehensiblewithinthenation.Indonesians recognize adat whether they agree or disagree with its revival; New ZealandersknowtheTreatyofWaitangiwhetherornottheysupport currentinterpretations.Recognizablefeaturesofthenationalpolitical
40
Anna Tsing
andculturallandscapearewovenintoallindigenousdemands.Finally, internationalforaforindigenouspoliticsreinforcenationaldifferences bymanagingrepresentationbynationalunits.TheUNmodelinwhich every nation has its spokespeople is replicated in many indigenous workinggroups.Inthese,indigenousrepresentativeslearntoimagine theirtransnationalstatusinrelationtotheirnationalstatus. Regionalvariationsinthemeaningofindigenousaretiedtocontingenthistoriesofsegregation,alliance,suppression,mobilization,leadership,andpoliticalculture.Itisimportantnottolosetrackofthediversity of subnational regions. Regional contrasts—eastern versus western Guatemala, inner versus outer Indonesia—make all the difference for allegiance to a politics of indigeneity. In this chapter, however, Iprivilegenationalvariationbecauseitbesthelpsmeexploretransnationallytravelingmodels. Powerfultransnationalmodelsforindigenousorganizingareformed in cross-national links. One prominent example is the link between indigenous groups in Canada and New Zealand that formed in the 1970s:Fromthislink,Isuggest,therhetoricofsovereigntycametobea keyfacetoftheinternationalindigenousmovement.Thelinkdeveloped fromtravelingstatemissionsaswellascomparativediscussionoftreaties andgovernance.Theideasaboutindigenoussovereigntythatdeveloped from the link informed indigenous mobilization in other British settlerstates,shapingpolicydebatesparticularlyinAustraliaandthe UnitedStates.Fromthiscluster,sovereigntyenteredtheinternational indigenous agenda, where it has continued to inform almost every documentonindigenousrights—despitethefactthisrhetoricjustdoes notworkinmostotherplaces. WheretheCanada—NewZealandlinkprovokesattentiontopetitionsandtreaties,adifferentAmericanconnectioninvokesmilitant struggle for pluriethnic autonomy. The dialogue linking North and SouthAmericaaround“theIndianquestion”hasbeenalongone,but one important entry is certainly the inversion of indigenismo in the late1960s,asMexicanactivistswerestimulatedbytheU.S.RedPower movement.Insteadofimagininganationalpoliticsofacculturation,they organizedaroundindigenousculturalrights,beginningthediscussion ofamulticulturalandpluriethnicnation.RedPoweractivistsinthe UnitedStatesdidnotjoinMexicandiscussion;butthecross-national linkstilloffereditlegitimacyandforce.Mexicanvoiceshavejoined otherLatinAmericanstrugglestotransformmestizajeandmodernization intopoliticalautonomyandculturalself-determination.Suchnarratives invokeinclusionandtransformationratherthanseparationfromthe
IndigenousVoice 41
nation.Assuch,theydrawdirectlyonearlierpeasantorganizing,with itsnation-makinghistory.Theyoffertransnationallypowerfulmodelsof militancy—andcooptation—totransnationalindigenousconcerns. Sometimes nonindigenous activists make the connections. The Brazilianexperienceofenvironmentalistindigenouspoliticstraveled toMalaysiaandIndonesiawithnorthernactivistswhomovedfromthe campaigntosavetheAmazontoSoutheastAsianrainforestcampaigns inthe1980s.Thealliancesbetweenenvironmentalistsandindigenous leaders only worked out well in Brazil at particular historical moments:forexample,whentheWorkersPartyhelpedtodomesticatethe struggle.Butfortheenvironmentalistsinvolved,theideaofalliance withrainforestpeoplewasgoodtotravel.Nationalenvironmentalists in Southeast Asia picked up on the theme—and a global rainforest campaignemerged.Fromthiscampaign,indigenouspeoplesaround theworldbecameeligiblefortheroleofenvironmentalsteward.But, ofcourse,notallindigenouspeopleshavewantedthisrole,andsome haveactivelyfoughtenvironmentalism. Rhetoricsofsovereignty;narrativesofpluriethnicautonomy;environmentalstewardship:Thesearenottheonlydefinitionalframesfor indigenousstruggle,buttheyareamongthemostpowerful.Myargumentaboutcross-nationalconnectionssuggeststhattheyformsemiautonomousaxesofindigenousvoice;theydonotalwayscomplement eachother.Iamsureyoucanalreadyseewhythesearchforaconsistent definitionalorphilosophicalbasisforindigenousorganizingwouldnot helpmeexplainthisconfiguration.Yetdefinitionalandphilosophical consistencyaredemandednotonlybyskepticalpoliticiansbutalsoby scholars.Isindigenousorganizingthedawnofanewculturalera,or, alternatively,thepredictableoutcomeofneoliberalreformonaglobal scale?Neitherapproachallowsustoconsiderthemakingandunmaking ofindigenouslinks.Scholarstendtorecognizetheimportanceofan argumentonlytotheextentthatitoffersaconsistentgenealogywithin anidentifiablephilosophicaltradition.Ifwehavetroubleappreciating contingent articulations—even after invoking Antonio Gramsci—it is because we think we have something down only when it repeats politicaltruisms.Yetglobalconnectionsarenotjustaboutrepetition. Thefrictionattheheartofglobalinterchangeallowsnewformsand practicestocomeintobeing,forbetterorworse.Torecognizethetravels ofindigenousvoicedoesnotmeanthatindigenousmobilizationsare good for everyone. Even if we limit ourselves—as I do here—to the proclamationsofeagerorganizers,theirpoliticalsuccessesaresporadic and frail. Their frameworks may not excite sympathetic response,
42
Anna Tsing
and when they do, these may or may not be helpful to anyone. By highlightingtheconnections,andtherefore,too,thedisconnections, I hope to show the irregular and contingent development of the indigenousframework.
VoicesThatTravel Howhaveindigenousconcernsgatheredtransnationalforce?HereI elaborateandexplainthethreeaxesofconnectionIintroducedbriefly intheprevioussection.OnlyafterwarddoIturntotheworkthatthese axesofindigeneitycannotdo.
Therhetoricofsovereignty:Two-rowwampumatthe TribunalofWaitangi In the late 1960s, Canada was absorbed by the drama of Quebecois nationalismandthestruggleofFrenchCanadiansforcivilrights.Liberals wantedthefederalgovernmenttoconfirmtheequalityofallCanadian citizens under a single standard. It was in this context that Prime MinisterPierreTrudeauissuedaWhitePaperin1969recommending that Indian status be abolished, making Indians Canadian citizens withoutentitlements.Hewasunpreparedfortheuproarthatfollowed. Indiansdemandedthatthegovernmentrespecttheirtreatyrightsand the obligations of their special status. “Red Papers” were issued in reaction, reminding everyone that “equality” in government policy alwaysprivilegedwhiteness.Theonslaughtofcriticalreactionforced the government to renounce the White Paper. The ensuing gap in governmentpolicyreopenedabroadrangeofquestionsaboutthestatus ofCanada’sindigenouspeoples.8 Trudeau returned from a trip to New Zealand in 1970 to address Indianprotesters;therehefirstbroughtuptheNewZealandpractice ofreservingfourparliamentaryseatsforindigenousMaori(Sanders 1977:9).NewZealand,likeAustralia,formedaneasymodelofproper governanceforCanadians.In1971and1972officialmissionsfrom CanadaweresenttoNewZealandandAustraliaseekingconsultation onindigenousgovernance.IncludedonthefirstmissionwasGeorge Manuel,thepresidentoftheinfluentialNationalIndianBrotherhood— as well as other Canadian Indian leaders. From these contacts, an intertwinedstoryabout“indigenouspeoples”begantoarise.9Internationalpetitionforself-determinationandredresswasattheheart ofit.IndigenousleadersinCanadaandNewZealandrecalledparallel
IndigenousVoice 43
histories of international petition: Maori delegations traveled to England to meet with the King or Queen in 1882, 1884, 1914, and 1924;chiefsfromBritishColumbiawentonsimilartripsin1906and 1909.RepresentativesoftheIroquoisConfederacytraveledtoGeneva with grievances for the League of Nations in the 1920s; so did the Maori.10Thishistoryofpetitioninformedsubsequenteffortstoforman internationalorganizationforindigenousrights.In1975,theNational Indian Brotherhood hosted the formative meeting of the World CouncilofIndigenousPeoplesinPortAlberni,BritishColumbia.This formativemomenthascontinuedtoinfluencesubsequentindigenous mobilization. Indigenous leaders in Canada received particular support from NewZealandMaorifortheirconcernswithtreatyrights,whichwere emergingasthecornerstoneofindigenousorganizinginNewZealand. In1840,theBritishCrownandsomefivehundredMaorichiefssigned thehistoricTreatyofWaitangi,whichallowedtheBritishtomakeinternationalclaimsoverNewZealand.Althoughthetreatydidnotinform subsequentBritishpolicy,“theromanticmythofthetreatyasasymbol oftheunityandamityoftworaces”persisted(Howard2003:184–185). AnannualcelebrationofthetreatywaslargelyaPakeha(white)event— atleastin1971,whenanemergentMaoriprotestmovementhonedin onWaitangiasasiteofcontest.In1972,aPakehawriterbroughtpublic attentiontothefactthatMaorichiefsandBritishrepresentativessigned differenttreaties—inMaoriandEnglish,respectively.WheretheEnglish versionsupportedtheideathatMaorihadceded“sovereignty”tothe Crown,theMaoriversioncededonly“governorship”(kawanatanga), retaining“cheiftainship”(rangatiratanga)overlandandproperty.Both versions gave Maori full rights of British citizenship, but the Maori versionmakesaMaori–Britishpartnershipinsovereigntythegoal.11 ThisissueoftranslationsetthetreatycenterstageinMaoristruggles forlandrights,politicalautonomy,andculturallyappropriateforms ofgovernance.In1975,asympatheticLabourgovernmentformedthe TribunalofWaitangitoassessgovernmentcompliancetothetreaty. Much of the subsequent success of Maori land-rights and politicalautonomyclaimsdependsonthistribunalanditsreports.Thetreaty, then, remains key to Maori assertions—and to Maori influence in Canadaandbeyond. InCanada,campaignstousetreatyrightsandgovernmentsettlements toobtainpoliticalpurchasealsoheatedupinthe1970sasindigenous peoplestransformedthemselvesintoFirstNations.TheCreeandInuit ofnorthernQuebecwonamajorsettlementin1975;inthesameyear,
44
Anna Tsing
theDeneassertednationhood.In1976,theInuit-controlledterritory ofNunuvutwasproposed;by1982,theNationalIndianBrotherhood hadbecometheAssemblyofFirstNations.Therhetoricofindigenous sovereigntywasfurtherdevelopedinfightstoputindigenousrights intotheCanadianconstitution.CanadianIndiansappealedforhelp tointernationalsupporters,especiallyinLondon,thusfurtheringtheir leadershipinpromotingindigenoussovereigntyonaninternational level,withaBritishEmpirescope(Sanders1985).Athome,oneofthe mostoutspokenindigenousgroupswastheIroquoisConfederacy.Those IroquoiswhoalliedwiththeBritishduringtheAmericanRevolution weregiventerritoriesinwhatbecameCanadaandtreatedasasovereign power. The alliance was materialized in the Gus-Wen-Qah or TwoRow Wampum Belt, in which two rows of purple shells, divided by the white sign of peace, signify the Iroquois and English each with theirownsovereignpath.Two-rowwampumbecameaniconforthe struggleforself-determinationinCanada(Johnston2003[1986]).Like theTreatyofWaitangi,two-rowwampumspoketothepossibilityof defining sovereignty in culturally appropriate terms. Together, they offeraninfluentialframeforthinkingaboutinternationalindigenous mobilizing. Almost from the first, indigenous people from the United States, Australia, and northern Europe responded to this axis of mobilization. By 1974, the U.S. American Indian Movement had sponsored theInternationalTreatyCounciltoseekforUNrecognitionoftribal treaties (Sanders 2003: 68). As in Canada and New Zealand, Native Americansusedthehistoryoftreatiesassymbolicpolitics:Forexample, theTrailofBrokenTreatiesprotestmarchof1972dramatizedIndian predicaments.TheU.S.governmenthadrefusedtodealwithNative Americans through treaties since 1871. The rhetoric of sovereignty attemptedtoreversethishistory.12Meanwhile,Australianaborigines had no treaties to fall back on. Yet their ties to other British settler states—CanadaandNewZealand—allowedthemtoactratherasifthey did.The1976AboriginalLandRights(NorthernTerritory)Actoffered an internationally influential model of building cultural values into entitlements:Aboriginalsacredsitesbecamethebasisoflandclaims (Maddock1991).Theinternationalismofallthiswasfurtherboosted bytheinvolvementofthenorthernEuropeanSami,whoconnectedthe emergentindigenousmovementtoScandanavian-basedinternational organizations,suchastheInternationalWorkingGrouponIndigenous Affairs(IWGIA),andfromtheretotheUnitedNations.13Manyobservers oftheglobalindigeneitymovementbeginhere,withtherhetoricof
IndigenousVoice 45
sovereignty.Itisthebasisofproteststokeeptheletter“s”inindigenous peoplesandtoremainfirmonthelanguageoftheUNdraftdeclaration. Butitisnottheonlyframingaxisofindigenouspolitics. Pluriethnicautonomy:AnInter-Americandialogue. Thesloganofthe1996 NationalIndigenousCouncilofMexico—“Neveragainwithoutus”— carriesusintoanotherindigenouspolitics:LatinAmericanstrugglesfor pluriethnicautonomy.14“Autonomyisnotsecession,”declaredthe1994 NationalIndigenousConvention;“autonomyisthefirstopportunity thatourindigenouspuebloswouldhavetobecometrueMexicansforthe firsttime.”15Thetermautonomyisusedinindigenouspoliticsaround theworld.However,onlyinLatinAmericaisitatermofstruggle.16 Mexicanindigenousmobilizationisbestknownthroughthe1994 uprisingoftheEjercitoZapatistadeLiberacionNacional(EZLN).The EZLN and its political successors have appealed not for sovereignty but,rather,fortheremakingofaMexicannationalismthatcouldwork for,ratherthanagainst,Indiansandthepoor.TheEZLNcarriedthe Mexicannationalflagduringpeacenegotiations;indigenousnegotiators confirmedwithoutpromptingthattheywere“100percentMexican” (Brysk 2000: 81). By remaking the nation in a pluralistic frame for the cause of social justice and cultural rights, the Zapatistas offered a charismatic rendering of an Inter-American story about popular democracy. Drawing from southern “peasant” legacies and from northernmulticulturalism,Zapatistasrespokeindigeneity,reenergizing earlier Latin American mobilizations, and indeed indigenous campaignsaroundtheworld. Onerelevantgenealogyofthisindigenousvoicebeginswithindigenismo and the politics of assimilation. In Mexico, indigenismo is associatedwiththemakingofthenationalpolitythroughmestizaje,the European-sponsoredculturalupliftandracialmixingofIndiansthrough whichcivilizationwasthoughttoadvance.17Contemporaryindigenous politics in Mexico is a thorough rejection of indigenismo. Instead of assimilation, indigenous Mexicans demand self-determination and culturalrespect.Butindigenismoremainssalient:ItbroughtIndians ideologicallyintonationaldevelopment,evenasitattemptedtoerase them.Thepowerofcontemporaryindigenousclaimstoenternational debates on democracy depends on this spectral presence. (North American Indians’ claims, in contrast, have trouble being heard in nation-statepolitics.)InMexico,indigenismoalsousheredinastillrelevantcastofplayers,includingmobilizedpeasantcommunitiesand appliedanthropologists.
46
Anna Tsing
Asanideologyofconquest,indigenismohasdependedontraveland dialogue;totrackitsvariedformsacrossLatinAmericawouldbean excitingproject—butnotoneforthischapter.Instead,Iconcentrateon alittle-noticedchapterofitsdevelopment:dialoguewithU.S.Indian politics.In1940,indigenismo—withallitsfaults—wasrevitalizedby thefirstInter-AmericanIndigenistCongress,heldinPátzcuaro,Mexico. ImportantMexicanscholarsandpoliticalfiguresattended;sotoodid John Collier of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs.18 Collier brought fundsfromtheRockefellerFoundationfortheenterprise,whichaimed tospreadBureausofIndianAffairsacrossLatinAmerica.19Collieralso came with a new kind of applied anthropology intended to uphold theintegrityofnativecultureswhileofferingIndianstoolstointegrate intonationalsociety.20HectorDíazPolancoexplainshow,withinthe Inter-American discussion, what seemed at first to be a gesture of respectforIndiansbecameyetanotherchargeforassimilation(1997: 68–70).“Integrationism”wasthenewamalgamofculturalrelativism and development formed in this dialogue. This model shaped the International Labour Organization’s Convention (ILO) 107 of 1957, whichcallsforthe“progressiveintegration[ofindigenouspeople]into thelifeoftheirrespectivecountries.”21MarisoldelaCadenaaddsthat “acculturation”asascholarlyconceptsweptnorthaswellassouthfrom this site and its related discussions (2005b). Meanwhile, indigenous integration blossomed as national policy in Mexico by conflating agendasforstateexpansionthroughpeasantdevelopmentandnation makingthroughIndianacculturation. Inthelate1960s,agroupofradicalMexicanintellectualslaunched afiercecritiqueofindigenismoasacolonialdiscourse.22Theircritique wasdomesticbutalsotransnational:ItcontinuedtheInter-American dialogue.Oneelementwastheirappreciationofthenortherners’Red Powermovement. U.S.NativeAmericanorganizinginthelate1960sandearly1970swas widelyinfluential.AsintheZapatistarebellion,aspectacularsymbolic politicswasdeployed:theoccupationofAlcatrazIsland;thetakeover oftheBureauofIndianAffairs(SmithandWarrior1996).Furthermore, theRedPowermovementcaughtattentionathomeandabroadasa transformationoftheBlackPowerandtheU.S.civilrightsmovements. BlackAmericanswereasymbolofstrugglenotonlyamongminorities allovertheworldbutalsoamongpostcolonialnations,whosawanticolonialenergiesextendedinblackmovements,andcommunists,who sawthedirtyoutcomeofadvancedcapitalismrevealedforallinblack oppression.TheRedPowermovementwasthefirstsuccessfulexercise
IndigenousVoice 47
inconnectingthisbroadsocialjusticebloctoindigenousmobilization. Demands for civil rights, cultural rights, class struggle, and political freedomwerebundledtogetherintheinternationalreceptionofRed Power.Incontrasttomanymorerecentindigenousmobilizations,third world nationalists were not pitted against indigenous activists; here theystoodincommonranksagainstinjustice. RedPowerdemandswereadvancedparticularlybyurbaneducated Indians,whocrossedtriballinestospeaktoaU.S.nationalaudience. The later turn to government-to-government negotiations in Native American politics has obscured the importance of pantribal civilrights-stylemobilizations.Theinclusivereachofsuchmobilizations madethemappealinginareaswithouttribaltreatyrightsandwhere therhetoricofsovereigntyseemedbasicallyirrelevant.23Indigenous organizinginmanyplaceswasfirststimulatedbydemandsforcultural rights,anendtodiscrimination,andpoliticalinclusion.Certainly,this wasthecaseinMexico. Inthelate1960s,asmallgroupofactivistMexicananthropologists usedRedPowertocontestMexicanindigenismoandturnindigenous politicsintoacritiqueofculturaloppression.24Inthecurrentclimate ofMexicanself-examination,theircritiquewasinfluential;thecritical anthropologistswereaskedtojointheNationalIndigenousInstitute (INI)andtoreformindigenouspolicy.25AccordingtoCourtneyJung, theofficialresultofthisreformdepoliticizedruralcommunitiesthrough itsfocusonculturalprideandbilingualeducation;however,thereform hadunofficialresultsinstimulatingindigenousself-identification(in press).First,itempoweredclass-basedpeasantorganizing,ifsometimes under an underinterpreted indigenous label. The 1974 Indigenous CongressinSanCristobal,Chiapas,forexample,inauguratedanera ofMarxistclass-basedmobilization—justbecauseitbroughtactivists together. Second, indigenous rhetoric familiarized activists with internationallypowerfulgenresthatbecameusefulintheearly1990s withthelossofpotencyofpeasantidioms.WhenMexicoaccepted structuraladjustmentand,mostdrastically,rewrotetheconstitution toexcludecommitmentstopeasants,therhetoricofpeasantstruggle became ineffective. Peasant activists became indigenous activists to utilizetheinternationalcachetofindigenouspolitics.Theconflation ofindigenousandpeasantdemandsallowedtheindigenousstruggleto builddirectlyonthepeasantstrugglewithouthavingtousediscredited keywords. EZLN militancy won wide support because it brought togetherfamiliarpeasantsocialjusticedemandsandthelanguageof indigenousrights.
48
Anna Tsing
Mexican struggles for indigenous autonomy are distinctive; and yet they also partake in a wider Latin American conversation about the possibility of democratic reform through indigenous autonomy. Indigenousorganizingforpluralistinclusionisextremelyvaried,even inneighboringcountries.PoliticalscientistDonnaLeeVanCott(2001) contrasts“ethnicautonomyregimes”innineLatinAmericancountries: Somewereputintoplaceinnegotiatingpeaceagreements,afterarmed struggle,whereasothersaccompaniedconstitutionalreform;somehad thesupportofpowerfulforeignordomesticallies,whereasothersdid not;andsomeweremoresuccessfulthanothersininstitutingindigenous rights.Whattheyhaveincommon,however,isthestruggletoexpand thepossibilitiesofthenation,notwithdrawfromit.
Environmentalstewardship:FromtheAmazonbasintothe Malayarchipelago What of forest dwellers who have neither the purchase of national inclusionnortheprecedenceoftreatyrights?Anotherindigenousaxis hasbroughtanalternativesetofalliances:theenvironmentalmovement. Thisaxisisperhapsthemostdifficulttopresentbecausenon-native activistsplayacentralroleinit.Northernactivists’stereotypesofnatives as “close to nature” open the movement to charges of romanticism andcolonialdiscourse.Thedramatizationofalliancemakesthepower imbalance between white environmentalists and native spokesmen particularlyapparent.Inmanycases,despiteinternationalattention, few benefits have accrued to indigenous communities.26 And such mobilizationshaveonlyoccasionallycalledforthsolidaritywithother vulnerablepeople,suchasthenonindigenousruralpoor. Yet these occasional moments of solidarity are important: They allowtheindigenous–environmentalalliancetocometolife.Thisis becausesuchsolidarityisproducedbythemediationofnationalLeft andoppositionmovements,whichallowindigenouscauses—forjust a moment—to speak within national political cultures (Tsing n.d.). Formarginalpeopleswhohavebeenexcludedentirelyfromnational participation, this is a significant moment of political articulation. The environmental–indigenous axis thus offers an opportunity for “indigenous voice” for those communities with neither treaties nor legacies of national inclusion. Furthermore, although critics have imaginedthisallianceemergingfullyarmedfromimaginativeEuropean foreheads,infact,itrequiredahistoryofmakinglinks,asinanyother collaboration.27
IndigenousVoice 49
One place to begin is Brazil, where international environmental activismhonedinonthedestructionoftheAmazonforestinthe1970s. MargaretKecktellsthestory:Brazilwasproudofforestdestruction(and Indianassimilation)inthe1970s:Brazilwasbooming—andaleader ofthedevelopingworld;itwastheheightofthe“economicmiracle.” At the UN conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Brazilianrepresentativesdismissedconcernfortherainforest:“Smoke isasignofprogress”(Keck1995a).Inthiscontext,thecombinationof environmentalandindigenousactivismseemeddownrightsubversive. Brazilianenvironmentalgroupswerewary;thegeneralswerealarmed (Hochstetler 1997). The Brazilian Left used Indians to criticize the militarygovernment,furtherexcludingthemfromnationalinfluence byidentifyingthemasunpatriotic(Ramos1998).Bothindigenousand environmentalorganizationbecameknownasessentiallyforeign.This onlyencouragednorthernersintheirdeterminationto“thinkglobally.” Theresultantimpasselimitedactiontochargesandcountercharges. The impasse broke for just a moment when the environmental– indigenousalliancehadanopportunitytobecome“Brazilian.”Perhaps themostimportantproductwasnotbenefitsforindigenouscommunities but,rather,abriefglimpseofsolidaritybetweenIndiansandtherural poor.Thepoliticalmobilizationofrubbertapperswascrucial;tiedto Brazil’sWorkersPartyandthetraditionofclass-basedruralorganizing, theybroughtarecognizablyBrazilianthemetostrugglesforrainforest protection (Almeida 2002; Keck 1995b). When the military regime endedin1985,newkindsofpoliticalparticipationseemedpossible; theemergentalliancebetweenindigenousleaders,ruralworkers,and environmentalists suddenly seemed a Brazilian mobilization.28 The 1988murderofChicoMendesmovedbothprogressiveBraziliansand foreigners; for a short moment, the national–global alliance seemed potent—andreadytotravel.Keckarguesthatthesymbolicpotencyof environmental–indigenousalliancesdrewinpartfromthefailureofthe developmentalistnarrative.Bythelate1980s,theBrazilianeconomy wasamess;theTrans-Amazonhighwaywasimpassable.Brazil’srhetoric ofdevelopmentnolongerforgedcross-nationalalliances.Instead,global environmental–indigenousalliancescouldlooktoBrazil(Keck1995a, 1995b).29 It is undeniable that something “traveled” out from the Brazilian experience, inspiring related mobilizations in other parts of the world.Perhapsthemostimportantthingtotravelwasthenorthern environmentaliststhemselves,whowereencouragedbyinternational excitementtoformallianceswith“forestdwellers”acrosstheglobe.Such
50
Anna Tsing
travelsmayhaveusedandabusedChicoMendes’scommitments.30Still, themovementstimulatedpoliticaleruptionsinwhichspokespeoplefor marginalizedindigenouspeoplebecameworthyinterlocutors. The political composite melding advocacy for forest dwellers and endangeredrainforestecologieswascementedbythetransferofthe transnational rainforest campaign from Brazil to Sarawak, Malaysia (Keck 1995b; Keck and Sikkink 1998). A number of activists worked on both campaigns. Furthermore, new transnational organizations linkingenvironmentalprotectionandindigenousrightssproutedlike mushroomsafterarain,andtheapplicabilityoftheirunderstandings tobothBrazilandSarawakwasattheheartoftheirglobalappeal.31In Sarawak,difficultyincastingtheenvironmental–indigenousstruggleasa Malaysianstrugglecausedtroubleonceagain(Brosius1999).32Onlywhen nationalenvironmentalistsacrossSoutheastAsiatookupthestruggleas theirowndidtheenvironmental–indigenousmovementcomeintoits strength.InThailand,Malaysia,thePhilippines,andIndonesia,national environmentalistsbroughtsocialjusticestrugglesintotherainforestin theirdemandsforthelandandresourcerightsofindigenouspeoples. Throughnationalmobilizations,indigenousrepresentativescameto speaktobothnationalandinternationalaudiences.AsinBrazil,the ability of national advocates to make indigenous struggles speak to nationalpoliticalculturegavetransnationalactivismtraction.33Latin AmericanforestdwellersbeyondBrazilhavealsoengagedinrelated strugglesforlandandresources,whichdrawfromthissameapparatus oftransnationalsupportwithinthecontextofnationalmobilization (e.g.,Sawyer2004).
Overlapandconvergence Everygrouphasitsownstory.Butpoliticallyeffectivetalesmustbe craftedtoenteremergentchannelsofpublicattention,suchasthose formedinthecross-nationalaxesIhaveintroduced.Thereisnoreason, ofcourse,forspeakerstolimitthemselvestooneestablishedaxis,and thereisplentyofroomformaneuverwithinandacrosstheseaxes.The storyoftheSamiofNorwayillustratesthesimultaneoususeofallthree axesincreatingoneindigenousposition. NorwegianSamihavehadaformativeroleincreatinginternational indigenouspoliticsbecauseoftheirScandinavianaccesstointernational politicalfora.HenryMinde(2003)noteshowSami—workingwithother Norwegianrepresentatives—werekeyplayersinthe1980spushtorevise ILOConvention107thatledtothedraftingofILOConvention169.
IndigenousVoice 51
Samihavehadtoworkagainstbothlocalandglobalassessmentsthat theyarenotindigenous.NotonlydidNorwegiansoriginallyrejectSami claimstoindigeneity,citingalonghistoryofassimilation,butNew WorldIndiansalsoquestionedtheirstatus,forexample,attheWorld CouncilofIndigenousPeople’s1974preparatorymeetinginGuyana. YetSamiclaimstomembershipintheWorldCouncilofIndigenous Peoples (WCIP) drew from an earlier, mutually formative history of contactbetweenCanadianIndiansandSami.GeorgeManuelvisited NorwegianSamileadersin1972onatripthathelpedManuelimagine thescopeandpromiseofinternationalindigeneity.Callingthemselves “WhiteIndians,”SamijoinedtheinternationalindigenismofCanada, NewZealand,andAustralia. SamiwereprimedforthisinvolvementbyagrowingsenseofSami culturalpridedevelopedfromanotheraxisofconnection:TheU.S.Red Powermovement.Inthelate1960s,comparisonsbetweenSamiandU.S. NativeAmericansflourished.Aflowofbookshelpedestablishtheframe: aSwedisheditionofVineDeloria’sCusterDiedforyourSins(1988[1969]) in1971;aNorwegianeditionofDeeBrown’sBuryMyHeartatWounded Knee (1971) by 1974. The Red Power movement inspired a radical ˇ SV;aSamiyouthculturedemandedtherevitalization Samigroup,C ofSamicultureandpolitics.AsinMexico,SamipridemixedMarxist militancyandfolkloricretrenchmentforthewellbeingofthenation. Yetnoneofthismighthavemademuchofadifferenceexceptfora dramaticenvironmentalconflict.In1978,theNorwegianparliament approvedplansfortheAlta–Kautokeinodamandhydroelectricproject intheregionofFinnmark.Samialliedwithenvironmentalactivistsin oppositiontothedam.In1979,Samistagedahungerstrikeinfront ofparliament,promptingarushofmediacoverage.Oneparticularly effectivecartoondepictedNorwayasacrocodilewithoneeyecrying fortheworld’sindigenouspeople(“PoorIndians,”thecaptionsays), whileitstailsweepsawayitsownindigenousSami(Minde2003:94– 95). Sami involvement in international indigenous politics brought them international support; in turn, Sami used the environmental confrontationtoraisetheirindigenousstatus.(TheSamirepresentative ata1981WCIPmeetingexplainedhisstanceinanappealtoBrazil: “whenyoulookateverythingasawhole,Altaseemslikealittlebranch intheBrazilianjungle”[Minde2003:86].)Athome,environmentalists broughttheconflictinsidenationaldebate.Whenthestatemustered policeforceagainstSamiprotestersin1981,“Norwegianself-perception as foremost defender of human rights was hanging in the balance” (Minde2003:95).
52
Anna Tsing
The“Altaaffair”changedtheclimateforSamipolitics,openingroads forSamipoliticalclaimsandenhancingSamiinvolvementintheinternationalindigenousarena.Samibecamespokespeopleforindigenous rightsathomeandabroad.Eachofthechannelsofintelligibilityand actionIhaveoutlinedaugmentedtheirabilitytoimaginethemselves withinindigenouspolitics.Indeed,theimportanceofScandanavian leadership,funding,andpublicationintheinternationalindigenous scenehasmaintainedanimportantpresenceforSamithere.Notevery indigenousleadership,however,hasmanagedtoadaptsoeasilyinto internationalconventions.
NodesofDissension Powerfulframesforindigeneityarealsospacesfordisagreement.Not everyonecanfitintotheseframes.Becausetheframesofferdifferent enmitiesandalliances,contradictionssurface.Consideringtheseirritationsandtensionspullsusfrompastfeatstowardemergentalliances anddivisions.
Toolittle,andtoomuch,recognition Therhetoricofsovereigntyhasmanyadvantages,notleastamongthem itsappealtoUNframeworksofself-determination.Thisappealisalso itsmaininternationaldrawback.Becausetheyneedthislanguagefor theirownsovereigntyclaims,mostnation-staterepresentativesrefuse to start a discussion on these terms. The UN draft declaration thus remainsadraft. Within a few countries, the rhetoric of sovereignty has been effective,butthisinitselfcanbecauseforalarm.U.S.government-togovernmentrelationswithNativetribesoffersaceremonialcoverto disempowerment.Italsostructuresconflictspittingrecognizedtribal governmentsagainstotherNativeAmericans.Withlimitedentitlements available,recognizedtribesbecomealliesofthefederalgovernmentin blocking the aspirations of the nonrecognized.34 Urban Indians and Indiansofmixedtribaloriginaresimilarlydisenfranchised. Sovereigntyitselfisnotuniformlyempowering.Oftenthesovereign nationisdefinedthroughmalecontroloverwomen;evenoppositional nationalism appeals through patriarchy. (Consider the origin of Gandhi’sfamoussatyagraha:IndianmeninSouthAfricademanded therighttodefendtheirmarriagesfromBritishcoloniallaw[Mongia 2004].)CourtsstructuremalecontrolintoNativesovereignty.Native scholar Renya Ramirez (in press) has analyzed Santa Clara Pueblo v.
IndigenousVoice 53
Martinez,akeystoneofNativeAmericansovereigntyclaims.The1978 SupremeCourtdecisionestablishedtherightoftribestodeterminetheir membership—and,inparticular,toignorefederalsexdiscrimination legislationbyexcludingwomenwhomarrymenfromanothertribe,as wellastheirchildren.TheironyofthecaseisthatSantaClaraPueblowas oncematrilineal,determiningofficebyconnectionsthroughwomen; onlyfederalmanipulationestablishedthemaleline.Thisisthecaseto whichtribesappealforauthorityasnations. NativeAmericanclaimsarerarelymattersofnationalsecurityinthe UnitedStates.Butwheresecuritydiscoursetargetsindigenouspeople, therhetoricofsovereigntygetsverydangerous.IttyAbrahamnotesthat theBrazilianmilitarycametoimaginenationalsecuritythrough“an east-westaxis,penetratingintothedepthsoftheunknown,untamed interior”(Abrahamn.d.:21).DevelopingtheAmazonbecameamilitary priority,andthe“internationalizationoftheAmazon”cametoseem thenation’sworstthreat.Whereverindigeneitybecomesentangledwith nationalsecurity,therhetoricofsovereigntydoeslittlegood.35Andif fantasyproductioncanbesodangerous,imaginetoowhereU.S.military adventures—asinNicaraguaandIndochina—havearmedindigenous peopletoundermineuncompliantstates.Indigenousnationalismrarely standsapartfromgeopolitics. InmostofAsiaandAfrica,therhetoricofindigenoussovereigntyis usefulatbestasperformanceart.Fromtheperspectiveofthenationstate,nationalsovereigntyistoorecentandprecioustobehandingit aroundtosmallgroups—andatthecommandofnorthernimperialists. Groups that imagine a real chance at independence—for example, Tibetans—donotneedindigenousrhetorictoadvancetheircause.For mostotherswhoclaimindigeneity,therhetoricofsovereigntyisonly useful at particularly open moments, and then mainly for dramatic effect.Thus,theIndonesianindigenousallianceAMANtookadvantage ofpost–NewOrderregimefreedomtocointheslogan“Ifthestatedoes notrecognizeus,wewillnotrecognizethestate”(AMAN1999:9).The sloganappealedtointernationalindigenousorganizations,butitwas notclearwhatformsofnonrecognitionindigenousgroupscouldoffer. Therhetoricofsovereigntydoesnottravelfarhere.Atthesametime, however,askingforinclusioninthenation-stateisnotsoeasyeither.
Who’sinandwho’sout? Groupswhohaveorganizedundertheindigenousbannerhavedone soinpartbecausetheyhavebeenleftoutofthebenefitsofnational
54
Anna Tsing
development. Being left out itself might be cause for solidarity—yet therearedifferentwaysofbeingleftout,andthesedivideindigenous perspectives.Forgroupswithouttreatyrightswithwhichtoprotest, muchcomesdowntotheplayofpoliticalcategories,asthesebeckon and repulse potential allies. Chiapas militants may bring the power ofpeasantpoliticstoindigenousstruggles,butPeruvianpeasantsfeel disempowerediftheyimaginethemselvesasindigenous.Marisolde laCadena(2000)explainsthatinhighlandPeruanelitetraditionof indigenousidentityandashame-drivende-Indianizationofthepoor have gone hand in hand. The only kind of indigeneity that seems empowering to most nonelites is that of the “indigenous mestizo,” anoxymoronicparingthatdeniesnarrativesofpopularassimilation andelitepurityalike.Intheuphillbattlefornationalinclusion,such differencesmatter. Such contrasts also assert themselves within nation-states—and, indeed,withincommunities.Indonesianadvocacyformasyarakatadat reachesforgroupsneglectedbynationaldevelopment’slargesse.Yet developmentdiscoursedrawsinmanyruralpeople,howevercheated and disadvantaged; many rural leaders are happier with dreams of progressthanwithculturalstruggle(Li2000).Thedistinctionsactivists makebetweenculturalminoritiesandordinaryfarmersfallapartonthe ground.MyfriendsintheMeratusMountainsofKalimantanaredivided about whether to cast their lot with the environmental–indigenous campaignontheirbehalforwiththeapparatusofnationaldevelopment andcorporatepublicity(Tsing2005).Iftheychosethefirsttheyare indigenous peoples; if they chose the second they are just another Indonesianruralcommunity.Putthisway,itisclearthatthechoiceis oneofallianceratherthanintrinsicidentity.Yetthisreturnsustothe nation-state:Theconditionsforcollaborationhaveeverythingtodo withthenationalcontoursofthediscourseon“indigeneity.”Thisis particularlyevidentwherenationalelitesclaimindigeneity. InIndonesia,asinMalaysiaandIndia,theindigenouscanlookbackto theanticolonialprojectandthealliancebetweenelitesandpeasantsthat createdthenation-state.36Thegovernmentsofthesecountriesrefuse globalindigenouspoliticsinpartbecausetheyholdtothisotheruseof theterm.Argumentsforindigenousrightsareconfusedinsuchcontexts bythefactthatindigenouscanmeanverydifferentthings.37 In Indonesia, the term pribumi, “indigenous,” refers to the native majority.Itsmajorpoliticalusehasbeentolegitimatediscrimination againstChineseIndonesians,whocannotbepribumihowevermany generationstheirancestorsmayhavebeenthere.Pribumievokesanurban
IndigenousVoice 55
discourseofquotasforbusinessmenanduniversitystudents;itreaches tothecountrysideonlyinthoseareaswherepeasantswerehistorically activeinformingthenation-state.OutsideofJava,ruralcommunities are rarely drawn into pribumi claims. Because this translation of indigenousistakenfornationalistuses,theenvironmental–indigenous movement looked elsewhere, settling on masyarakat adat because it offeredaseparatebutstillrecognizablegenealogy. InIndia,indigeneityinitsseveralmeaningshasevengreaterreach. IndigeneityisjustasavailableforHindunationalismasenvironmental– indigenousalliances.Furthermore,thelonginstitutionalizationofthe termadivasi(“tribe”)inIndiacreatesanotherlegacyofbothexclusion andpotentialrevitalization.Thoseconsideredadivasinegotiatebetween thepleasuresoftenuousacceptanceintoHindupoliticsandculture,with itsnationaliststrengthsanddangers,andthepossibilitiesofalliance withwell-meaningbutstereotypingenvironmentalists(Baviskar2003; thisvolume).
Naturalresourcetug-of-war Meanwhile,notallindigenouspeoplessupportenvironmentalcauses; someareinactiveconflictwithconservation.Twokindsofconflicts are prominent. The first pits different kinds of environmentalists against each other: National development conservationists propose reserves that displace indigenous people, whereas environmental– indigenousalliancesadvocatecomanagement.38Thesecondpitsjust thoseindigenouspeoplewhohavebeenmostsuccessfulinachieving self-government against environmental causes that might interfere witheconomicenrichment.Inbothcases,theinabilityofeitherthe indigenous rights movement or the environmental movement to displacethehegemonyofprivatepropertyandcapitalistdevelopment is evident. Both environmentalists and indigenous rights activists make demands for land in the incompletely privatized zones where governmentsstillgivethingsaway.Inthisincreasinglynarrowspace, turfwarsareeasytoinstigate.“Success”inbothmovementsinvolves formingbureaucraciesandcorporations,which,insearchofwealthand power,convertnatureinto“resources”tobecovetedanddestroyed. Greenland Home Rule illustrates the perils and possibilities of indigenous battles against environmental activism (Caufield 1997). GreenlandispartofDenmark,butsince1979localgovernmenthasbeen inthehandsofaHomeRuleadministrationimaginedasempowering Greenlandnatives.Oneofthefirstactionsofthenewgovernmentwas
56
Anna Tsing
totakeovermanagementofhuntingandfishing.Greenlandershad beensetoffagainstenvironmentalistsbeforeHomeRule:A1970sanimal rightscampaignculminatedintheEuropeanEconomicCommunity’s 1983 ban on sealskin imports, which devastated Greenland’s seal industry.ThecomingofHomeRuleallowedGreenlanderstoacton theirantagonism.ToprotestEuropeaninterestinprotectingwhales, GreenlandersvotedtoleavetheEuropeanCommunityin1982.In1991, GreenlandHomeRuleprecipitatedacrisisintheInternationalWhaling Commission(IWC)byjoiningNorway,Iceland,andJapantodemand thereopeningofcommercialwhaling.Whenthisinitiativefailed,Home Rule helped form the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, anantienvironmentalistalternativetotheIWC.HomeRulehasalso supportedtheInuitCircumpolarConference,anindigenousinitiative thatpressesforwhalingrights.ThroughitsconnectiontoDenmark, HomeRulehascontinuedaninvolvementwiththeIWC,whereitlobbies forbiggerquotas.RichardCaufield(1997:162)callsthisorganizational assertivenessaformof“weaponsoftheweak,”butitlookstomemore like“weaponsofthestrong.”ThesimilaritybetweenGreenlandHome Ruleandnaturalresourcebureaucraciesintheinternationalnation-state systemhasallowedGreenlandnativesmuchthesamestrategicroom formaneuverasotherwhalingstates. ThehistoryofwhalinginGreenlandiscloselytiedtostateformation. Between1928and1958,DanishauthoritiescaughtwhalesonaBritishbuiltvesselanddistributedthemeattoGreenland’sruralcommunities. (Thecommerciallyvaluedblubberwas,ofcourse,shippedtoDenmark.) Thiscolonialrelationestablishedthecentralityofwhalemeattostate notionsofaboriginalsubsistence.NowGreenlandreceivesquotasfor whalingfromtheIWCasapartofitsaboriginalsubsistencehunting calculations.AsamemberoftheIWC,GreenlandHomeRulemustaccept theorganization’squotas,butasaself-governingentityitcandecide howtoallocatethem.Likeothergovernments,HomeRulehasbeen impressedintoprivatization,transforminggovernment-ownedtrade servicesintofor-profitcompaniesbytheearly1990s.Meanwhile,Home Ruledividesthewhalequotabetweenfishingvessel–basedwhalingand collectivehuntwhaling.Fishingvesselsrequirecapitalandareexclusive tothewealthiestfamilies;skiff-basedcollectivehuntingbenefitsmany morepeople.Inthemid-1990s,collectivehunterswereofferedonly34– 36percentofthewhalingquotainWestGreenland.Everyoneelsewho wantedwhalemeathadtopurchaseitfromvesselowners.Although it is clear that whaling is important to Greenlanders, the resource managementbureaucracyskewsitforcapitalistdevelopment.Itishard
IndigenousVoice 57
nottolendaneartothecriticwhowrote:“Wearespectatorstothe developmentofourownland.TwentypeoplehereinGreenlandplan anddecidewhatwillhappento50,000people”(Caufield1997:47).39 Otherenvironmental–indigenousconflictsareevenmoreconfusing. Perhapsthemostdisturbingareconflictsbetweenandwithinindigenousgroups:ShouldNativeAmericantribes,indefenseofsovereigntyand wealth,putradioactivewastesontheirreservations(Harriman1996)? ShouldKayapoleadersbeapplaudedordeposedformakingcontracts withloggersandminers(Turner1999)?Whenresourcecorporations setuptheirown“indigenousrights”organizations—asoilcompanies haveinEcuador,thedizzyingconflationbetweenempowermentand destructioniscomplete(Sawyer2004).Meanwhile,intheenvironmental advocacyworld,asinthearenaofindigenousrights,“success”continues tobemeasuredbythedevelopmentofcapitalismandstateforms.As longascapitalistresourceusestructureseventhemostoppositional designsforpeopleandnatureinindigenouszones,theenvironmental– indigenous alliance will play a limited role as the utopian dream of losers.
SpeakingGlobally Indigenouspeoplesgainvoicethroughcross-nationalconnectionsthat empowertheirapproachtonationaldilemmas.Scholarsoftenlookto indigenouspoliticsforanexampleofthegrowingirrelevanceofnationstates,butmyinvestigationsuggeststheirconstitutiverole.Indigenous leadersconveycommunityperspectives;yet,iftheywantextralocalclout, theirrepresentationsmustresonatebothnationallyandinternationally. Differences across cross-national framing axes expand the terrain of representationalpossibilities;noraretheseframesstable.Arguments within,across,andbeyondtheseframesenlivenindigenouspolitics, shaping future trajectories. Recognizing the diversity of indigenous challengesisacollectivetask;thischapteroffersonebeginning. In contrast to Enlightenment universals, international indigenous politicsopensaglobalpoliticsinwhichinconsistencyandcontradiction becomeourgreatestassets.Notthatanyoldthingwilldo:Indigenous politicsrequiresustojudgebetweentherealandthefake,empowerment and co-optation, good and bad allies. The call to immerse ourselves in indigenous experience is one starting point for such judgments. Still,indigenousvictoriesdependonmismatchinguniversalrightsand localculturallegacies,expertscienceandplace-basedknowledge,social justice,andcommunalprecedence.
58
Anna Tsing
Thisis,ofcourse,achallengesohugeitishardtobeginlistingwhat itisupagainst.Toaddinsulttoinjury,scholarlyconventionscontinue toplagueeventhemostsympatheticchroniclers.Itishardtodescribe theinconsistentglobalitycalledforherewithinordinaryscholarlyconventions,whicheitherprivilegenations,ethnicgroups,orcommunities asunitsor,alternatively,jumptoatranscendentandhomogeneous globalspace.Instead,Ihavetriedtoshowthepotentialoftracinglinks withoutsubsumingthemtouniversals.Suchlinksofferboththegrip thatmakesindigenouspoliticstravelandtheirritationsthatlimitthat travel.Elsewhere,Ihaveusedtheimageof“friction”tobringgripand irritationintothesamemetaphorandtosuggestamethodforbringing inconsistentglobalhistoriestopublicattention(Tsing2005).Here,my historicalfragmentsandglobaltalesusethismethodtobringoutboth thecarryingpowerandthelimitingspecificityofindigenousvoice.
Notes This chapter emerged from discussions with my indigeneity reading group: MarkAnderson,JeremyCampbell,JamesClifford,andS.EbenKirksey.Iam indebtedtothemforintroducingmetotheliteratureandideashere.Marisol de la Cadena kindly continued my tutoring in Latin American studies, yet mypreparationisstillfarfromadequate.CharlesHaleandHughRaffleseach pushed me a little further; I know that I have not succeeded in answering theircriticisms.Participantsintheconference“IndigenousExperienceToday” made useful suggestions. James Clifford’s “Indigenous Articulations” (2001) guidedmysearch.Theattempttowriteaboutdisparateregionsoftheworldis humbling.Allgapsandgaffsareofcoursemyown. 1. RonaldNiezen(2005:534)describes“paradoxes”oftheindigenousmovement: its newness versus its ancient heritage; dependence on the oral and face-to-face as well as international law and governance; subsistence versus high-tech orientations. Clifford (this volume) discusses the interplay of territorialityanddiasporainconstitutingindigenousidentities. 2. Adam Kuper’s “The Return of the Native” (2003) and the discussion it raised introduce debates about the indigenous movement. For more of the issuesunderdiscussion,seeHale(2002),Li(2003),andRamos(2002).
IndigenousVoice 59
3. This chapter concludes a trilogy of works on the development of indigenous politics in and beyond Indonesia. In the first (2002), I chart the history of the Indonesian term for “custom,” adat, which has been key to the making of Indonesian indigenous claims. In the second (n.d.), I follow the words indigeneity and adat in and out of Indonesian and transnational conversations.Here,IuseIndonesiandevelopmentstoinspireatransnational analysisofdivergentindigenousclaims. 4. TheIndonesianis“Bhinnekatunggalika.” 5. ForahistoryoftheconceptofadatinIndonesia,seeTsing2002. 6. I discuss the wider context of Indonesian indigenous organizing in Tsing2005;seealsoLi2003. 7. IowemyunderstandingofthispointtoS.EbenKirksey.InWestPapua indigenouspoliticsisassociatedwithstatecooptation. 8. See Perry 1996: 149–151, Cairns 2000, Fleras and Elliot 1992, and Weaver1985. 9. Maori activist Linda Tuhiwai Smith (conference communication) points out that individual Maori and Canadian Indians worked with each other’s campaigns—including her sister, who joined the National Indian Brotherhood. 10. SeeSanders1977andJohnston(2003[1986]:107). 11. SeeHoward(2003:186–194)andFlerasandSpoonley(1999:5–25). 12. ClinebellandThompson(2003)explainU.S.treaties.The1975Indian Self-DeterminationandEducationAssistanceActrepealedterminationpolicy, strengthened self-government, and opened a new era of tribal sovereignty claims(Howard2003:63). 13. TheIWGIAisbasedattheUniversityofCopenhagen.IdiscusstheSami situationinmoredepthattheendofthissection. 14. Brysk(2000:85)quotestheslogan.DiazPolanco(1997)isakeysource onLatinAmericandialogues. 15. ThisquotecanbefoundinStephen(2003:203). 16. Elsewhere,thetermdescribesrelationshipsbetweenstatesandindigenousgroups.(See,e.g.,Arthur2001;Jull1998.)InLatinAmerican,itstretches to mobilize popular support that combines cultural pride and political selfdetermination.Mexicanactivist–anthropologistGilbertoLópezyRivas(2005) arguesthattheconceptofautonomyreachesoutequallytoMarxistlegacies of struggle and to international legal regimes of recognition. “Furthermore, contrarytotheopinionsofthesupportersoftheUnitarianState,autonomy doesnotfragmentnationalunity.Itisdiscriminationandracism...thatlead totheStatefragmentationandtotheruptureofthenationalunity....Through its resistance against neoliberalism, indigenous autonomy is broadening its boundariesandwideningthem,toevenincludethebuildingofanewkindof
60
Anna Tsing
nation...takingdemocracyawayfromtheofficialrhetoric,andconvertingit intothepracticethatreachesandfillseachspaceinsociety,intheeconomy, in the government, even in the social movements and opposition parties themselves”(2005). 17. Marisol de la Cadena (2005a) points out that “mestizaje” throughout LatinAmericainvolvedstandardsofeducation,propriety,andcultureaswell asrace. 18. Hector Díaz Polanco describes the Mexican delegation: “Among the membersoftheMexicandelegationtothiscongresswerethemostoutstanding scholarsonindigenousissues,severalofwhomwerealsopoliticalfigures.... Withthemtherewasalsoagroupofyoungerpeople,manyofwhomwould becomedistinguishedindigenistintellectuals”(1997:78). 19. Onthefunds,seedelaCadena2005b;onthebureaus,seeBrysk(2000: 125). 20. DouglasSanders(2003[1983]:64)explains:“AsJohnCollierlaterargued intheUnitedStatesversionofindigenism,ahealthyIndiancommunitycould adapt better than an unhealthy one. Mexican indigenism and the United States ‘Indian new deal’ came together in 1940 at the First Inter-American ConferenceonIndianLife.” 21. ThequotationisfromILOConvention107,Article2.1,andcanbeseen inThornberry(2002:433). 22. Theriseandfallofappliedanthropologyinaddressingtheindigenous questioninMexicoiscontextualizedinWright1988. 23. The Red Power movement also inspired urban indigenous people in Canada and New Zealand. I do not include those stories here because their internationalleadershipbecameknownforadvancingadifferentmodel. 24. Thesereformerswerealsoinfluencedbythe1971Barbadosconference onindigenousrights(Junginpress:ch.4),whichwasorganizedbytheWorld CouncilofChurchesandtheEthnologyDepartmentoftheUniversityofBern, Switzerland.LatinAmericaniststendtoseethisconferenceastheoriginpoint of the contemporary international indigenous movement (e.g., Brysk 2000: 86);incontrast,theAnglophoneclusterismorelikelytopointtotheWorld CouncilofIndigenousPeoples,mentionedabove. 25. Jung(inpress:ch.4)writesthatPresidentLuisEcheverriawastryingto recapturelegitimacyafterthe1968studentmassacre. 26. Thecriticalliteratureonthesetopicscomesintofocusaroundparticular movement“hotspots.”Forexample,whenTheBodyShopbegantodeploy the Amazonian Kayapo in their advertising campaigns, criticism exploded. See,forexample,Turner(1995),whosummarizescriticismsbuttempersthem withtheKayapoopinionthatthealliancerepresentsanopportunity,ifnota perfectone.
IndigenousVoice 61
27. Aminoracademicindustryhasgrownuptocriticizeideasofindigenous harmony with nature. Such criticisms are right in pointing to a history of Westernstereotypes;theyfail,however,intracingthecollaborativehistories inwhichindigenousspokespeopleandtheirinterlocutorsengageandenlarge these stereotypes. For a useful attempt to address this problem, see Ramos 2003. 28. Hugh Raffles (personal communication, September 2006) notes the formationofBrazilianNGOsfromthismomentofcoalition. 29. Manycaveatsareonorder,includingthese:(1)Indigenousorganizing against the military regime was an important precedent for environmental mobilization;(2)thealliancebetweenrubbertappersandIndianslastedonly ashorttime;and(3)thecurrentprominenceofNGOshasprivatizedIndian dilemmas,producing“anumbingoftheIndianmovementasapoliticalforce” (Ramos2002:269).Chernela(2005)arguesthatinternationalorganizations have damaged community-based conservation in the Amazon by requiring compliancetointernationallyimposedstandards. 30. The death of Chico Mendes unleashed a storm of controversy about howbesttointerpretMendes’spolitics.Wasitappropriatetousehischarisma tobuildenvironmentalism,or,instead,tofocusonsocialjusticeforthepoor? See,forexample,HechtandCockburn(1989). 31. The term forest dweller was introduced in South American indigenous politics and transferred from there to Southeast Asia—and international indigenousrightsdiscourse. 32. TheMahathirregimecalledenvironmental–indigenousactivism“ecoimperialism”andinvokedtheindigenous“righttodevelopment”asareason todestroytherainforest. 33. IreviewtheIndonesianhistoryinTsing(2005:ch.6).SeealsoKeckand Sikkink(1998);Brosius(2003). 34. Miller (2003) writes about this process from the perspective of U.S. “invisibleindigenes.”Thestructureofrecognition,heargues,keepsrecognized triballeadersonthesideofthefederalgovernment.Onpage16,forexample, hedescribesTulalipleadersofWashingtonstatewhoargueagainstextending fishingrightstounrecognizedIndians. 35. Hugh Raffles (personal communication, September 2006) points to a recent resurgence of fears of the internationalization of the Amazon. This time,anxietiesaboutthisthreattoBraziliansovereigntycomefromboththe RightandtheLeft.ConspiracytheoriesofU.S.invasionandannexation,or UNadministrativecontrol,haveemergedinthisclimate. 36. Theliteratureandpolicynexusregarding“indigenousknowledge”isthe chiefcross-nationalproductofthisotherwisemainlynationalsetofdiscourses. Inspeakingofindigenousknowledge,SouthAsianpostcolonialtheoristsjoin
62
Anna Tsing
handsbrieflywithLatinAmericancriticsofdevelopment(e.g.,Agrawal1995). Yet this nexus stands in an awkward relationship to the indigenous rights movementmoregenerally. 37. BenedictKingsbury(2003[1998])offersausefulreviewofdefinitional dilemmasforindigenousgroupsinAsia,wheremostgovernmentsdenythe relevanceoftheterm. 38. Janice Alcorn’s (2005) review of political differences in the World WildlifeFoundationoffersausefulintroductiontosuchconflicts. 39. Caufieldidentifiesthecriticasthewriterofa1990lettertotheeditorof Sermitsiak’.AlltheinformationinthisparagraphisfromCaufield(1997).
References Abraham,Itty.n.d.“Security,”InWordsinmotion,editedbyCarolGluck andAnnaTsing. Agrawal,Arun.1995.DismantlingthedividebetweenIndigenousand scientificknowledge.DevelopmentandChange26:413–439. Alcorn,Janice.2005.Dancesaroundthefire:conservationorganizations andcommunity-basedresourcemanagement.InCommunitiesand conservation:Politicsandhistoriesofcommunity-basednaturalresource management, edited by J. Peter Brosius, Anna Tsing, and Charles Zerner,37–68.Oakland,CA:AltaMiraPress. Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (AMAN). 1999. Catatan Hasil KongresMasyarakatAdatNusantara,Jakarta15–22Maret1999.Jakarta: AMAN. Almeida,MauroBalbosa.2002.ThepoliticsofAmazonianconservation: The struggles of rubber tappers. Journal of Latin American Studies 7(1):170–219. Arthur,WilliamS.2001.IndigenousautonomyinAustralia:Someconcepts, issuesandexamples.Technicalreportdiscussionpaper220.Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, The Australian NationalUniversity. Baviskar,Amita.2003.Tribalpoliticsandsustainabledevelopment.In NatureintheglobalSouth,editedbyPaulGreenoughandAnnaTsing, 289–318.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress. Brosius,J.Peter1999.Greendots,pinkhearts:Displacingpoliticsfrom theMalaysianrainforest.AmericanAnthropologist101(1):36–57. ——.2003. Voices for the Borneo rainforest: Writing the history of an environmental campaign. In Nature in the global South, edited byPaulGreenoughandAnnaTsing,319–346.Durham,NC:Duke UniversityPress.
IndigenousVoice 63
Brown, Dee Alexander. 1971. Bury my heart at Wounded Knee: An IndianhistoryoftheAmericanWest.NewYork:Holt,Rinehart,and Winston. Brysk,Alison.2000.Fromtribalvillagetoglobalvillage:Indianrightsand internationalrelationsinLatinAmerica.Stanford:StanfordUniversity Press. Cairns, Alan. 2000. Citizens plus: Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian state.Vancouver:UBCPress. Castaneda,Quetzil.2004.“WearenotIndigenous!”:Anintroductionto theMayaidentityofYucatan.JournalofLatinAmericanAnthropology 9(1):36–61. Caufield,Richard.1997.Greenlanders,whales,andwhaling:Sustainability andself-determinationintheArtic.Hanover,NH:UniversityPressof NewEngland. Chernela,Janet.2005.Thepoliticsofmediation:Local-globalinteractions in the Central Amazon of Brazil. American Anthropologist 107 (4): 620–631. Clifford,James.2001.Indigenousarticulations.TheContemporaryPacific 13(2):468–490. Clinebell,JohnHoward,andJimThompson.2003[1987].Sovereignty and self-determination: The rights of Native Americans under internationallaw.InInternationallawandIndigenouspeoples,edited byS.JamesAnaya,117–162.Burlington,VT:Ashgate. delaCadena,Marisol.2000.Indigenousmestizos.Durham,NC:Duke UniversityPress. ——.2005a.Aremestizoshybrids?TheconceptualpoliticsofAndean identities.JournalofLatinAmericanStudies37:259–284. ——.2005b.Theproductionofotherknowledgesanditstensions:From Andeanist anthropology to interculturalidad? Journal of the World AnthropologyNetwork1(1):201–224. Deloria,Vine,Jr.1988[1969].Custerdiedforyoursins:AnIndianmanifesto. Norman:UniversityofOklahomaPress. Díaz Polanco, Hector. 1997. Indigenous peoples in Latin America: The questforself-determination.TranslatedbyLuciaRayas.Boulder,CO: WestviewPress. Fleras, Augie, and Jean Leonard Elliot. 1992. The “nations within”: Aboriginal-staterelationsinCanada,theUnitedStates,andNewZealand. Toronto:OxfordUniversityPress. Fleras,Augie,andPaulSpoonley.1999.RecallingAotearoa:Indigenous politicsandethnicrelationsinNewZealand.Auckland:OxfordUniversity Press.
64
Anna Tsing
Hale, Charles. 2002. Does multiculturalism menace? Governance, culturalrightsandthepoliticsofidentityinGuatemala.Journalof LatinAmericanStudies34:485–524. Harriman,Ed,director.1996.Radioactivereservations[videorecording]. GoldhawkProductions,distributedbyFilmmakersLibrary. Hecht, Susanna, and Alexander Cockburn. 1989. Lands, trees, and justice:DefendersoftheAmazon.TheNation248(20):695–697. Hochstetler,Kathryn.1997.TheevolutionoftheBrazilianenvironmental movementanditspoliticalroles.InThenewpoliticsofinequalityin LatinAmerica,editedbyDouglasChalmers,CarlosM.Vilas,Katherine Hite,ScottB.Martin,KeriannePiester,andMoniqueSegarra,192– 216.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Howard,BradleyReed.2003.Indigenouspeoplesandthestate:Thestruggle forNativerights.DeKalb:NorthernIllinoisUniversityPress. Johnston,DarleneM.2003[1986].ThequestoftheSixNationsConfederacyforself-determination.InInternationallawandIndigenous peoples,editedbyS.JamesAnaya,85–116.Burlington,VT:Ashgate. Jull,Peter.1998.IndigenousautonomyinNunavut:Canada’spresentand Australia’s possibilities. Discussion paper, Centre for Democracy, DepartmentofGovernment,UniversityofQueensland.Electronic document, http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00001190, accessed January4,2007. Jung, Courtney. in press. Critical liberalism: What normative political theoryhastolearnfromtheMexicanIndigenousrightsmovement. Keck,Margaret.1995a.InternationalpoliticsintheAmazon.PaperpresentedatEnvironmentalConflictsandMovementsconference,Five CollegeProgramonPeaceandSecurity,Amherst,MA. ——.1995b.SocialequityandenvironmentalpoliticsinBrazil:Lessons fromtherubbertappersofAcre.ComparativePolitics27(July):409– 424. Keck, Margaret, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond borders: Advocacynetworksininternationalpolitics.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress. Kingsbury,Benedict.2003[1998].“Indigenouspeoples”ininternational law:AconstructivistapproachtotheAsiancontroversy.InInternational law and Indigenous peoples, edited by S. James Anaya, 211–254. Burlington,VT:Ashgate. Kuper,Adam.2003.TheReturnoftheNative.CurrentAnthropology44 (3):389–395. Li, Tania. 2000. Constituting tribal space: Indigenous identity and resource politics in Indonesia. Comparative Studies in Society and History42(1):149–179.
IndigenousVoice 65
——.2003.MasyarakatAdat,Difference,andtheLimitsofRecognition inIndonesia’sForestZone.InRace,nature,andthepoliticsofdifference, editedbyDonaldMoore,JakeKosek,andAnandPandian,380–406. Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress. LópezyRivas,Gilberto.2005.Neo-liberaletnocide,democracyandindigenous autonomy in Latin America. Paper presented at Democracy and DomesticPolitics:PerspectivesfromAfrica,AsiaandLatinAmerica, KualaLumpur-South-SouthProgram.Electronicdocument,http:// www.terrorfileonline.org/en/index.php/Neo-liberal_etnocide,_ democracy_and_indigenous_autonomy_in_Latin_America,accessed onJanuary4,2007. Maddock, Kenneth. 1991. Metamorphosing the sacred in Australia. AustralianJournalofAnthropology2(2):213–232. Miller, Bruce Granville. 2003. Invisible indigenes: The politics of nonrecognition.Lincoln:UniversityofNebraskaPress. Minde,Henry.2003.ThechallengeofIndigenism:ThestruggleforSami landrightsandself-governmentinNorway1960–1990.InIndigenous peoples:Resourcemanagementandglobalrights,editedbySveinJentoft, HenryMinde,andRagnarNilsen,75–104.Delft,theNetherlands: EburanAcademicPublishers. Mongia,Radhika.2004.Migration,sex,andstatesovereignty:Undoing themethodologicaltyrannyofthenational.Paperpresentedatthe SimpsonCenterfortheHumanitiesConferenceontheCulturalLogic ofTransnationalFamilies,UniversityofWashington,Seattle,June. Niezen, Ronald. 2005. Digital identity: The construction of virtual selfhoodintheindigenouspeoples’movement.ComparativeStudies inSocietyandHistory47(3):532–551. Perry,RichardJ.1996.Fromtimeimmemorial:Indigenouspeoplesandstate systems.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress. Peterson,Brandt.2005.Unsettledremains:Race,trauma,andthepolitics ofidentityinmillennialElSalvador.Ph.D.dissertation,Departmentof Anthropology,UniversityofTexas,Austin. Ramirez, Renya. in press. Race, gender, and tribal nation: A Native feminist approach to violence against women of color. Meridian Journal:Feminism,Race,Transnationalism. Ramos,AlcidaRita.1998.Indigenism:EthnicpoliticsinBrazil.Madison: UniversityofWisconsinPress. ——.2002.Cuttingthroughstateandclass:Sourcesandstrategiesof self-representationinLatinAmerica.InIndigenousmovements,selfrepresentation,andthestateinLatinAmerica,editedbyKayB.Warren andJeanE.Jackson,251–279.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.
66
Anna Tsing
——.2003.Pulpfictionsofindigenism.InRace,natureandthepoliticsof difference,editedbyMoore,Kosek,andPandian,356–379.Durham, NC:DukeUniversityPress. Sanders,DouglasE.1977.TheformationoftheWorldCouncilofIndigenous Peoples.Copenhagen:IWGIA. ——.1985.TheIndianlobbyandtheCanadianConstitution,1978–82. In Indigenous peoples and the nation-state: “Fourth World” politics in Canada,Australia,andNorway,editedbyNoelDyck,151–189.Social andEconomicPapers,14.St.John’s:InstituteofSocialandEconomic Research,MemorialUniversityofNewfoundland. ——.2003[1983].There-emergenceofindigenousquestionsininternational law. In International law and Indigenous peoples, edited by S.JamesAnaya,55–82.Burlington,VT:Ashgate. Sawyer,Suzana.2004.Crudechronicles:Indigenouspolitics,multinational oil, and neoliberalism in Ecuador. Durham, NC: Duke University Press Smith, Paul Chaat, and Robert Allen Warrior. 1996. Like a hurricane: TheIndianmovementfromAlcatraztoWoundedKnee.NewYork:The NewPress. Stephen,Lynn.2003.IndigenousautonomyinMexico.InAttheriskof beingheard.Identity,indigenousrights,andpostcolonialstates,editedby BartholomewDeanandJeromeLevi,191–216.AnnArbor:University ofMichiganPress. Thornberry,Patrick.2002.Indigenouspeopleandhumanrights.Manchester: ManchesterUniversityPress. Tsing,Anna.2002.Landaslaw:Negotiatingthemeaningofproperty inIndonesia.InLand,property,andtheenvironment,editedbyJohn Richards,94–137.Oakland,CA:InstituteforContemporaryStudies Press. ——.2005. Friction: An ethnography of global connection. Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress. ——.n.d.Indigeneityinmotion.InWordsinmotion,editedbyCarol GluckandAnnaTsing. Turner,Terence.1995.Neoliberalecopoliticsandindigenouspeoples: The Kayapo, the “Rainforest Harvest,” and the Body Shop. Yale ForestryandEnvironmentalScienceBulletin98:113–123. ——.1999. Indigenous rights, environmental protection, and the struggle over forest resources in the Amazon: The case of the BrazilianKayapo.InEarth,air,fire,water,editedbyJillKerConway, KennethKeniston,andLeoMarx,145–169.Amherst:Universityof MassachusettsPress.
IndigenousVoice 67
VanCott,DonnaLee.2001.Explainingethnicautonomyregimesin LatinAmerica.Studiesincomparativeinternationaldevelopment35(4): 30–58. Weaver,Sally.1985.Politicalrepresentivityandindigenousminorities inCanadaandAustralia.InIndigenouspeoplesandthenation-state: “FourthWorld”politicsinCanada,Australia,andNorway,editedby Noel Dyck, 113–150. Social and Economic Papers, 14. St. John’s: InstituteofSocialandEconomicResearch,MemorialUniversityof Newfoundland. Wright,Robin.1988.Anthropologicalpresuppositionsofindigenous advocacy.AnnualReviewofAnthropology17:365–390.
This page intentionally left blank
t w o
Tibetan Indigeneity: Translations, Resemblances, and Uptake Emily T. Yeh
W
hydoesitseemnaturalforTibetanstobeincludedinavolume aboutindigenousexperiencetoday?Thetermindigenous,after all,isnotwidelyusedbyTibetanseitherwithinTibetorinexile.And why,consideringthewide-ranging,perhapseven“viral”natureofthe conceptofindigeneity,hasits“uptake”nothappenedtoasignificant degree among Tibetans? These questions would have made little sensebeforethe1980s,whenthetermindigenouswasrarelyusedto describepeopleanywhereintheworld.Today,atransnationalsocial movementhasmade“indigenouspeoples”bothalegaltermandan identityclaimedbymanypeopleswithdiversehistoricalsituations.It iswidelyunderstoodtoimply,amongotherthings,firstness,nativeness ororiginalorprioroccupancyofaplace;attachmenttoaparticular territoryorhomeland;marginalizationwithinaculturallyorethnically differentwidersociety;andoften,ahistoryofcolonization.Assuch, it has been used in international conventions, academic works, and activist organizing around issues of sovereignty, dispossession, humanrights,andenvironmentalstewardship.Basicdemandsofthe indigenousrightsmovementincluderespectforcollectiverightstoland, recognitionofculturaldifference,andtherighttoself-determination. Many indigenous struggles are centered around the reappropriation ofland,artifacts,andknowledge,andarepredicatedonamutualacknowledgement of a historical debt created by dispossession. At the sametime,indigenousidentityhasalsocometobeassociatedwitha setofidealsofenvironmentalstewardship,connectednesstonature, spirituality,andegalitarianism—idealsthatdonotsimilarlyadhereto
69
70
Emily T. Yeh
groupsmorecloselyidentifiedas“ethnicminorities”andthatpresent bothstrategicopportunitiesandchallenges. Despitethetransnationalindigenousrightsmovement’ssuccessin creatingasetofideasaboutwhatconstitutesindigenousstatus,attempts toprovideasingle,overarchingdefinitionhavebeencontroversial.A UnitedNationsreportbySpecialRappateurMiguelAlfonsoMartínez (1999)statedthe“obviousfact”thatinpostcolonialAfricaandAsia, “autochthonous groups/minorities/ethnic groups/peoples ... cannot ...claimforthemselves,unilaterallyandexclusively,the‘indigenous’ statusintheUnitedNationscontext.”Notsurprisingly,thisgenerated considerable opposition from the many groups in postcolonial Asia andAfricawhoclaimanindigenousidentity.TheUNWorkingGroup onIndigenousPopulationshasthusavoidedastrictdefinition,instead allowinggroupstoidentifythemselvesasindigenous.Therearelimits, however,tothewaysthetermcanbestretched.Aclaimofindigeneity initselfisnotenough;thatclaimmustberecognizedandlegitimated, ifnotbythecorrespondingstate,thenatleastbysomeotheraudience towhichactivistswishtospeak. ThetermindigenousinvitesTibetans,asitinvitesmanyothergroups, tobeinterpellatedbyit(cf.Castree2004:153),andcertainlysomething aboutthehistorical,political,andsocialsituationofTibetansinvites otherstocallthem“indigenous.”Yetforthemostpart,neitherordinary Tibetansnorthosewhomightbeexpectedtospeakinapublic“indigenous voice”—thatis,activists,publicintellectuals,andcommunityleaders (Tsingthisvolume)—haveclaimedthetermorthecommonalitythat itsuggestswithotherindigenouspeoples.TheEnglishwordindigenous appearsonlyrarelyinthecopiousEnglish-languagematerialproduced bytheTibetangovernmentinexile.Tibetantermsdescribingnativeness, such as sa skye rdo skyes (“born of this soil and rock”) or tribalness, suchastshowaanddewa,areusedineverydayspeechinTibet,but theyarenotdeployedtomobilizeclaimsaboutsovereignty,human rights,nationalinclusion,environmentalstewardship,ortodemand rightsthataccompanytherecognitionofculturaldifference.Saskye rdo rkyes is typically used to indicate one’s belonging to a particular village, neighborhood, or town; for example, an elderly couple in Lhasacomplainedtomeabouthavingtorentathreadbaregovernment apartmentbystating:“thosepeopleoneseesbuyinghousesinLhasa today[i.e.,otherTibetans]aren’tsaskyerdorkyesLhasapeople.They’re alloutsiders.”Nativeness,atleastincurrentusage,referencesascale thatissmallerthancollectiveclaims-makingaboutpoliticalorcultural rights.WhenTibetansdomakeclaimstopoliticalandculturalrights
TibetanIndigeneity:Translations,Resemblances,andUptake 71
oraskforrecognitionofenvironmentalstewardship,theydosobased ontheiridentityas“Tibetan,”ratherthanasbeingsaskyerdoskyes.1 Inthissense,theydonotcurrentlyparticipateinwhatNiezen(2003) calls indigenism—the social movement of those indigenous groups whodeliberatelybuilttranslocalandtransnationalallianceswithother indigenousgroupstoachievetheirowngoals. In this chapter, I explore the lack of uptake of an explicitly “indigenous”identityeveninthepresenceofasetofcharacteristicselfrepresentationsthatbearwhatIcallafamilyresemblancetoindigenous formations around the world. More specifically, Tibetan claims and representations about environmental stewardship and ecological wisdomresonatestronglywithotherindigenousformations.Thishas longbeenthecaseinexile,buttheserepresentationsandassociations haveonlyrecentlyemergedinChina.Atthesametime,thepolitical claims of sovereignty that characterize the transnational indigenous movementpresentastumblingblockforthearticulationofanexplicitly indigenous identity. For Tibetans in exile, indigeneity is too weak a politicalclaim.WithinTibet,itistoostrongunderthecurrentpolitical situation; instead, identity claims in the People’s Republic of China (PRC)areonlyconsideredlegitimateifexpressedthroughthecategory ofminzu(nationality),whichisframedwithinthelargerdiscourseof minzutuanjie,aphrasemeaningboth“amitybetweenthenationalities” and“nationalunity.”Bulag(2002)aptlydescribesminzutuanjieasa “hegemonicmanagementdevicetomaneuverinthecontextofChina’s diversity.”TibetansinTibetlivewiththeideologyofmulticulturalism (duoyuanwenhua)butalso,simultaneously,repeatedstatedenunciations of“nationalsplittism”(minzufenlie).Theonlyacceptableculturaldifferenceisthatwhichupholdsnationalunity,anddoesnotsplitthe nation.Inanalyzingindigeneity,Isuggestweneedtopayattention toboththespecificterminologyusedandthefamilyresemblanceof “indigenous” characteristics; under specific historical and political circumstances,thetwomaynotalwaysconverge. Myunderstandingofindigeneityisbasedonatheoryofarticulation (Clifford2001;Hall1996;Li2000),atermthatStuartHall,following AntonioGramsci,usesinitsdoublesenseofbothspeakingandofa connectionorlinkagethatcanbeforgedundersomeconditions,but is“notnecessary,determined,absolute,andessentialforalltime”(Hall 1996:141).Atheoryofarticulation:“isbothawayofunderstanding howideologicalelementscome,undercertainconditions,tocohere togetherwithinacertaindiscourse,andawayofaskinghowtheydoor donotbecomearticulated,atspecificconjunctures,tocertainpolitical subjects”(Hall1996:141).
72
Emily T. Yeh
Thisshiftsattentionawayfromquestionsof“invention”orauthenticity, andtowardanunderstandingofindigeneityasacontingent,structured positioning.TaniaLi(2000)usesatheoryofarticulationinacomparison oftwogroupsoffarmersinCentralSulawesi,Indonesia,toexplorewhy onehaspersuasivelyarticulatedacollectivetribalorindigenousidentity, whereastheotherhasnot.Li’snotionofa“tribalslot,”asaconceptual frameofindigenousrecognitionissimilartowhatTsing(2003)calls the “tribal allegory.” Tsing suggests that two distinct story lines—of tribesandpeasants—haveshapedadministrativepoliciesandacademic programsconcernedwithruralpeoples.Peasantallegoriesareassociated withpopulistconcernsofclassandeconomicequity.Tribalallegories, bycontrast,areconcernedwithculturaldifference,ecologicalwisdom, andintimateconnectionswithnature.Thecollectivearticulationof anindigenousidentityrequiresaparticularconjuncture,context,or encountertomakeuseofanavailabletribalslotorallegory. The“tribalallegory”ofTibetanecologicalwisdomanddeepconnection tonaturehasbeenanavailablenarrativeforTibetansinexilesincethe 1980s,andhasmorerecentlyemergedinChinaaswell.Tibetanswithin Tibetarebeginningtorearticulatetheirlocalenvironmentalknowledge inthelanguageofglobalenvironmentalism,andinthepastfewyears, Chineseenvironmentalactivistsandscholarshavebeguntoactively search for the opportunity to support ecologically friendly Tibetan subjects.Inthissense,aTibetanindigenousformationhasexistedfor severaldecadesinexile,andisnowemergingwithinTibet.Inthenext section, I briefly describe how Tibetans have been represented, and representthemselves,aswiseinthewaysofnatureandasstewardsof theland.Therestofthischapterturnstothelargerpoliticalchoices andconstraintsthatexplainwhythese“GreenTibetan”articulations donotadopttheexplicitlanguageofindigeneity.
EcofriendlyTibetans Environmentalstewardshipisoneofthemostpowerfulframesofcontemporaryindigenousactivism;inmanyplaces,allyingwithenvironmentalactivistsaroundproblemsofenvironmentaldestructionhasgiven indigenouspeoplesapowerfulvoiceandplatformformobilization(Tsing thisvolume).Asaresult,oneofthecentralimagesmadeavailablebythe internationalindigenouspeoplesmovementisthatoftheinherently ecological Indian. Assertions of Tibetans’ natural ecofriendliness are nowanindispensableelementofboththeTibetangovernmentinexile andthetransnationalTibetMovement’srepresentationsofTibetanness.
TibetanIndigeneity:Translations,Resemblances,andUptake 73
AccordingtooneTibetanexilewriter,forexample,“forcenturiesTibet’s ecosystem was kept in balance and alive out of a common concern for all of humanity” (Atisha 1991). Similarly, a brochure produced by the Environment and Development Desk of the Central Tibetan AdministrationinDharamsala,Indiastates: PriortotheChineseoccupation,Tibetwasecologicallystableandenvironmentalconservationwasanessentialcomponentofdailylife.Guided byBuddhistbeliefsintheinterdependenceofbothlivingandnonliving elementsoftheearth,Tibetanslivedinharmonywithnature.
Huber’s(1997,2001)genealogyoftheGreenTibetaninexileshows that representations of Tibetans as naturally ecofriendly only began tobeproducedafter1985.Theconjuncturethatledtoitsemergence wastheparticipationofgovernment-in-exilerepresentativesinaseries oftransnationallyorganizedmeetingsandevents,suchastheWorld WildlifeFund([WWF]WorldWideFundforNatureoutsideofNorth America)–sponsored Buddhist Perception of nature project, World EnvironmentDay,andtheAssaiInterfaithCeremonyonWorldReligions and the Environment. Tibetan assertions of intrinsic ecofriendliness thusappearedrelativelylate,aftertheideaofinherentenvironmental stewardshipandknowledgehadalreadybeenfirmlyattachedtoother groups including Native Americans and Kayapo. The congealing of thecharacteristicofecologicalwisdomaroundaTibetanidentityin exilejoinedmanyothercasesofindigenousenvironmentalstruggles and stewardship in the 1980s and 1990s, and in this sense, was an indigenousformation. WithinChina,theemergenceoftheGreenTibetanasanindigenous formationhasbeenevenmorerecentstill.Thestate’sofficialposition on the Tibetan environment attributes all positive environmental stewardship to Chinese science and modernization, not Tibetan tradition;forexample,“itwasafterthepeacefulliberationofTibetthat ecologicalimprovementandenvironmentalprotectionstartedthere, andbegantoprogressalongwiththemodernizationofTibet.”2Tibetan self-representationsofenvironmentalstewardshiphavebecomepossible onlyinthespacecreatedbyChina’ssmallbutgrowingenvironmental movement, and in particular by Chinese staff of transnational conservationNGOs,aswellasChinesesocialscientistswhohavebecome interestedinindigenousenvironmentalknowledge(seealsoLitzinger 2004). Their interest in the relationship between Tibetan culture andnatureisitselftheresultofacontingentconvergenceofasetof
74
Emily T. Yeh
forces,includingtheirownworkwithinternationalfoundationsand developmentagencies,andmorebroadly,thepromotionofthetourism industryasamajorstrategyforeconomicdevelopmentinTibet,therise ofyouthbackpackerculture,andarisinginterestinTibetanBuddhism, particularlyamongresidentsofwealthycoastalcities.Thepresenceof environmentalistslookingactivelyforevidenceofTibetanindigenous environmental knowledge and stewardship has in turn motivated Tibetans to rearticulate and translate their claims into the language andformunderstoodbytheenvironmentalists. One important actor is Conservation International (CI), which launcheditsfirstprograminChinain2000.Amajorcomponentwas thedesignationoftheMountainsofSouthwestChinaasa“biodiversity hotspot.”Morethan80percentofthishotspotcoincideswithplaces whereTibetanscurrentlyandhistoricallyhavelived.Withmanyyears ofexperienceworkingwithWesternenvironmentalistsandscientists in these Tibetan areas, the in-country director has implemented a major Sacred Lands program, the premise of which is that Tibetans alreadyhavealonghistoryofenvironmentalstewardshipwhichstems fromtheirreligiousandculturaltraditions.Thus,CIisproposingto employalready-existingenvironmentalwisdomtowardthenewgoal ofbiodiversitypreservation: The Mountains of Southwest China is rich in culture as it is in biodiversity.ThemajorityofinhabitantsareTibetanswithstrongcultural tiestotheirnaturalenvironment.ReflectingtheBuddhistreverencefor alllives,Tibetanvillagesandmonasterieshaveforcenturiesdesignated mountains,lakes,forestsandriversasholysites,andhavedesignedlocal resourcemanagementsystemstoguardthelandforexploitation.3
Thesearchbythisandothersimilarprojectsforevidenceoflocal environmentalstewardshipandreverencefornaturehascometogether withparticularlocalhistories,lifetrajectories,andtheagencyofTibetans whohaveactedasculturaltranslatorstoallowagrowingnumberoflocal villagers,religiousteachers,andgrassrootsorganizationstoarticulate aGreenTibetanidentity. Inonecase,aclusterofvillagesinChamdo,intheeasternTibetAutonomousRegion(TAR),organizedacommunitygroupforenvironmental protectionafteravisitbyanewTibetanenvironmentalNGO,which inturnwasbeingsupportedbyCI.Theinformalleaderofthelocal environmentalprotectionefforts,whohadpreviouslywrittenseveral
TibetanIndigeneity:Translations,Resemblances,andUptake 75
essaysabouttheneedtorehabilitateandprotectthesacredmountain forreligiousreasons,wroteseveraldocumentsforthenewlyformed communitygroupin2003,includingthefollowingtext: Ourforefathers...alwaystookcareofnatureandfoundwaystocreate abalanceinnature.Weshouldpayattentiontotheserichtraditions.... Theyhavemuchincommonwithmodernscience.Theyaresomething that we can be proud of. ... If promoted, these traditions might be helpful for researchers in their search for understanding nature. [Our forefathers] protected mountains, rivers, trees, boulders, and forests. [translationfromoriginalinTibetan]4
Although his earlier writing was concerned with specific types of illnessesanddisastersthatresultfromthedisturbanceoflocalbeings andspirits,themorerecentdocuments,whichreflectanengagement withenvironmentalists,iscouchedinthenarrativeofenvironmental stewardship made available and pervasive by transnational indigenous movements. In particular, the appeal to the potential that local environmental knowledge has for informing science is a familiar themeinindigenousexperienceinmanysettings(seeCruikshankthis volume). Thereareanumberofdifferencesbetweenthearticulationsofthe GreenTibetaninexileandmorerecentlyinChina,whichIdonothave spacetodiscuss.Whatisimportanthereisthatinbothcases,theseselfrepresentationsemergedandweregivenvoicethroughanengagement withalargersetofnarrativesoftraditionalenvironmentalstewardship madeavailablebytheglobaldiscourseofindigeneity.Thisnarrative, positingadistinctandpositiverelationshipbetweenagroupofhitherto marginalized people’s culture and natural resource management—a relationship from which the industrialized world could learn from andbenefit—positionsthosewhoidentifywithitintoa“greentribal slot”thatisalmostalwaysunderstoodasan“indigenousslot.”Inthis sense, the image of the Green Tibetan, among other characteristics of Tibetan communities such as a history of marginalization and representationsofexoticspirituality,isatypeofindigenousformation. Nevertheless,thetermindigenousitselfisnottypicallyusedaspartof theself-representation.Thisismorethanjustamatterofsemantics. The political stakes are high. The rest of this chapter turns to these politicalstakesthatstructuretheabsenceoftheexplicitlanguageof “indigeneity”inTibetanidentificationandclaimsmaking.
76
Emily T. Yeh
IndigeneityorIndependence?TibetansinExile People are not indigenous naturally, but rather by convention and recognitionbyothers;althoughmutable,theconventionsofindigeneity atanyparticulargiventimematteragreatdeal.ForTibetansinexile,the mostimportantconventionistheactivedisavowalbymanyindigenous groupsofsecessionistclaims. Thatoneofthecentralclaimsofindigenousgroupsissovereigntyand self-determinationhascausedagreatdealofconcernamongstatesthat indigenouspeoples’demandsarethreatstotheirterritorialintegrity. Toallaythesefearswhileconvincingreluctantstatestoaccedetotheir demands,manyindigenousleadershaveproclaimedthattheirintention is not to “divide states.” Analyzing the draft declaration of the UN WorkingGrouponIndigenousRights,DavidMaybury-Lewisfindsthat it“makesitclearonceandforallthatsecessionandseparatismarenot onthemainstreamagendaofindigenouspeoples.Whattheywantisa recognitionoftheirrightswithinexistingstates”(1997:56).Similarly, RonaldNiezensuggests, Indigenouspeoples...donotasaruleaspiretoindependentstatehood, even though this is a concern mistakenly (or strategically) invoked in responsetotheirclaimstoself-determination....Indigenismcanthus bedistinguishedfromethno-nationalismbytheconsistentreluctanceof indigenouspeoples,atleastuptothepresent,toinvokesecessionand independentstatehoodasdesiredpoliticalgoals.[2003:203–204]
Thereareseveralinterrelatedreasonsforthis.First,completeindependence would absolve former hosts of treaty obligations. Also, the internationalnatureoftheindigenouspeoplesmovement,inwhich disparategroupsareinvitedtoseethemselvesaspartofaglobalcommunity, means that they “do not need statehood to possess internationalstatus”(2003:203–204).Furthermore,mostgroupsthatclaim indigenousstatusaretoosmallandhavetoofewresourcestobeable toestablisheconomically,politically,andmilitarilyviablestates.And finally,independentstatehood“wouldinmostcasesbeantitheticalto indigenouspeoples’traditionalpoliticalvalues,”notbecausetheyare inherentlyaversetotheuseofbureaucracies,butratherbecausetheir goalshavebeengearedtowardsecuring“traditional”politicalidentity ratherthanstatehood(Niezen2000:142). Indeed,thefactthatindigenousgroupsgenerallydemandsovereignty withoutsecessionisoneofthereasonsindigeneityhasbeencelebrated
TibetanIndigeneity:Translations,Resemblances,andUptake 77
asaradicalchallengetomodernpoliticalorganization.Theargument for nations within nations, and rights to self-determination nested withinstatecitizenshiprights,isconsideredoneofthegreatinnovations of indigenism (Dirlik and Prazniak 2001; Niezen 2003). However, thisconventionofseparatingsovereigntyfromsecessionisprecisely why Tibetan exiles have been reluctant to explicitly identify their struggle as an indigenous one. Official exile history describes Tibet (anachronistically)asanindependentcountrywhosehistorystretches back through an unbroken period of thousands of years, up to the Chineseinvasion(or,accordingtothePRC,“peacefulliberation”)of 1951. Emphasis is placed not only on a long history of sovereignty andthepresenceofallofthetrappingsofstatehoodbutalsoonTibet’s immensegeographicalsize(theTibetanculturalregionisaboutthesize ofWesternEurope)anditspopulationofroughly6million.5Inother words, the government in exile and transnational Tibet Movement emphasizeseveralcharacteristicsthatarequitedifferentfromthoseof mostindigenouspeoples.Initstransnationalscope,theTibetMovement resemblestransnationalindigenousorganizing,butratherthanlinking itsissuestothoseofothersimilarlypositionedpeoples,itfocuseson humanrightsviolationsandindependencespecificallyforTibet. This brings up the thorny political question of whether complete independenceisindeedwhatiscurrentlybeingdemanded.ThePRC hasconsistentlyandadamantlyopposedindependence,viewingitasa dealbreakerinallnegotiations.Thus,in1987theDalaiLamaproposed the“MiddlePath,”anoptionofautonomywithoutindependence.This wouldretaintheterritorialintegrityofthePRCandputChinaincharge ofTibet’sforeignpolicywhilegivingthegovernmentofTibet“theright todecideonallaffairsrelatingtoTibetandTibetans.”Inthemid-1990s, thegovernmentinexileheldaReferendumaskingTibetansinexileto choosefromamongfouroptions:completeindependence,theMiddle Path,satyagraha(passiveresistance),orself-determination;theresult wasmajoritysupportfortheDalaiLama’sMiddlePath.However,the Referendumwasmarkedbymuchconfusionandcontroversy.Some Tibetan argued that without the input of Tibetans inside Tibet, the referendumcouldnotbelegallybinding.Otherschargedthattheresulting votewasnottrulyindicativeofalackofdesireforindependence,but ratherthatTibetansvotedthatwayonlytosay“whatevertheDalai Lamasaysisfinewithme.” Morerecently,WesternlegalexpertsworkingwiththeTibetMovement have pointed out that the Referendum was deeply flawed, becauseself-determinationshouldbeconsideredauniversalrightof
78
Emily T. Yeh
all “peoples,” a category for which Tibetans have been determined inotherinternationalforatoqualify,ratherthanoneamongseveral optionsforpoliticalstatus(Herzer2002).Asaresult,therehasbeena shiftinrhetoricamongsomeelementsoftheTibetMovementtoward afocusonself-determination,savingdebatesaboutspecificpolitical formforlater.Accordingtooneformergovernment-in-exileminister in2004,“independenceunderthepresentcircumstancesissomething theTibetansonlydemand.Self-determinationontheotherhand,isa right,aprinciplethatthemodernworldaccepts...itisevidentthat self-determinationmaybeaveryimportantidea,onethatcanunify ourmanyvoicesandalsofindglobalandlegalresonance.”6 Theseappealstoself-determinationasagloballyandlegallyrecognizedrightcomeveryclosetothenarrativesofsovereigntyandselfdeterminationmadeavailablebytheindigenouspeoplesmovement. TheDalaiLamahasalsofurthersoftenedhisposition,declaringthat heisnow“completelycommittedtorenouncingindependence.”Since thelate1990s,hehasdroppedseveralconditionsthatweredifficult forChinatoaccept.Hiscallsforgenuineregionalautonomyhavealso shiftedinfocustoculturalheritage,againinlanguagethatisstrikingly reminiscentofglobalindigenousvoice:“Tibet’sreligiousandcultural heritage is extremely rich. Thus to protect the heritage, Tibet needs somerightsofself-government”(Sautman2002).7 However,todatetheChinesegovernmenthasadamantlyrejectedthese pronouncements,insteaddenouncingtheDalaiLamaasahypocrite andreactionary“splittist,”someonewhosetrueandmaliciousintent isto“split”theChinesenation.AccordingtotheChinesegovernment, theDalaiLama’s“MiddleWay”ismerelyaruse.Indeed,theassociation of the Dalai Lama with “splittism” is so strong that display of his photographswasonceagainbannedinCentralTibetinthemid-1990s, andaspartof“patrioticeducation”campaigns,monksandnunshave beenrequiredtopersonallydenouncehimandto“drawaclearline” betweenthemselvesandthe“Dalaiclique”(TibetInformationNetwork [TIN]1996).CelebrationsoftheDalaiLama’sbirthdayhavealsobeen banned,andpublicdenunciationhascontinuedintothepresent,in cyclesoflesserandgreaterseverity.TheopeningoftheQinghai–Tibet Railwayin2006drewpromisesfromBeijingofa“fighttothedeath struggle”againsthimandhissupporters. ThoughtheDalaiLamanowappealsforrealpoliticalautonomyrather thanindependence,thegovernmentinexilecontinuestoadhereto thedefinitionanddemandfor“greaterTibet,”whichincludesnotjust theTARalone—theareacurrentlyacceptedas“Tibet”bytheChinese government—butrathertheentire“threeprovincesofTibet”(Amdo,
TibetanIndigeneity:Translations,Resemblances,andUptake 79
Kham,andU-Tsang),includingpartsoffiveprovincial-levelunitsin China,withroughlytwicethetotallandareaandtwicetheTibetan populationaslivesintheTAR.Theinsistenceonpoliticalautonomy notjustfortheTARbutforgreaterTibethasbeenoneofthelargest obstaclesinattemptednegotiationsbetweenthegovernmentinexile andtheChinesegovernment,withthelattercompletelyrejectingthis possibility. ThelackofasolutionandapparentlydeterioratingsituationinTibet hasfurtherangeredexileactivistswhoopenlydisagreewiththecallfor autonomy.ThereisevendissentagainsttheDalaiLama’smessageof nonviolence,withsomeyouthleadersclaimingthat“about60percent ofTibetanyouthwanttotakeuparmsagainstChina”andthat“the futurewillbebloody”ifthesituationisnotresolvedduringthelifetime ofthecurrentDalaiLama(Chanda2002).TheTibetanYouthCongress (TYC),counting20,000membersandcallingitself“thelargestTibetan NGO,”demandsofitsmembersthatthey“serveone’scountry...under theguidanceofHisHolinesstheDalaiLama”but,simultaneously,that they“struggleforthetotalindependenceofTibetevenatthecostof one’slife.”AmongTYC’srecentcampaignshavebeenahungerstrike inGenevain2004toprotest“UNnegligence”ontheissueofTibet, andacalltoboycottallChinese-madegoods. AlthoughgroupssuchasTYCagreethatTibetansareindigenousin thesenseofnative,prioroccupantsofaplace,theyrefusetheideathat thisplacecanbeproperlycalledChina.Yetthecurrenttrendinthe transnationalindigenousmovementispreciselyforindigenouspeoples tospeaktoandevenrepresentthelargernation-stateofwhichthey areapart.Therefusaltospeakinregistersthatlinksmoothlywiththe narratives of other indigenous rights groups around the world—for example,callsforsovereigntywithoutseparatestatehoodornational inclusion in a multicultural nation—helps explain why Tibetans in exilehavenotmademuchuseofindigenousstatusasaclaim-making politicaltool.Eventhoughtheofficialgovernment-in-exileposition nowemphasizesthefamiliarindigenousthemesofself-determination andsovereignty,thereisconsiderableresistancetothesethemesfrom certainfragmentsoftheexilepopulation,aswellassuspicionfromthe audienceitwasmeanttoappease—theChinesegovernment.
NationalistProtestsofthe1980sandtheCirculation ofDiscourses China’spoliticalisolationseverelycurtailedcontactbetweenTibetans insideTibetandtherefugeecommunityformorethantwodecades
80
Emily T. Yeh
after 1959. Only in the early 1980s were Tibetans allowed to go on pilgrimageandvisitrelativesinSouthAsia.Duringthistime,parents begantosendtheirchildrentoschoolsrunbytheexilegovernment. Aftertheproindependencedemonstrationsinthelate1980s,however, travel to India was restricted once more, and families with children therewerepressuredtobringthembacktoTibet.Despiteincreasing difficultiescrossingtheborderinthe1990sandafter,manyTibetan childrencontinuetoescapetoIndiatostudyinTibetangovernmentin-exile schools. Of these, a significant number eventually return to Tibeteitherbecausetheirparentsarepressuredtobringthemhome, orinsomecasesbecausetheyreturnedtovisittheirfamiliesandfound themselvesunabletoleaveagain. Asaresult,discoursesandideas(aswellasmaterialgoodsandpeople) circulateincomplexnetworksbetweenTibetansinexileandinTibet, aswellasbeingshapedbynotionsofTibetannessproducedbyWestern andChineserepresentations.ElliotSperling’sanalysisoftherhetoric ofdissentinpoliticalpamphletsproducedinLhasaaroundthetimeof Tibetannationalistdemonstrationsin1987–89shows“clearevidence of familiarity with information and materials originating with exile TibetanswithindissidentcirclesinTibet”(1994:269),butalsopicking and choosing from among these ideas. In particular, the pamphlets drewheavilyonexilematerialsdealingwiththequestionofhuman rights,whiledisregardingotherexilediscourses,suchastheDalaiLama’s statementsrenouncingindependenceinfavoroftheMiddlePath.In addition the Tibetan pamphleteers also used vocabulary specific to ChineseMarxismaswellasvocabularysharedbymanyanticolonial movementsaroundtheworld.Again,theglobaldiscourseofindigeneity wasnotinvoked. The1987–89protestsresultedinnearlyahundreddeaths(including children) from police gunfire, some three thousand arrests followed by imprisonment and usually accompanied by torture, and finally, theimpositionofmartiallawinLhasaformorethanayear(Barnett 1998).Thestaterespondedwithatwo-prongedstrategy:atightening ofpoliticalcontrol,includingincreasedsurveillancetofacilitateashift from“passive”to“active”policing(targetingpotentialprotestorsbefore demonstrations),andarapidprogramofmarketizationthathascreated newTibetanclassdivisions.Giventheseveritywithwhich“attemptsto splitthenation”arepunished,TibetanswithinTibetmustmaneuver very carefully when making cultural or political claims. In contrast to the demands of many exiles, as well as the rhetoric of the Lhasa pamphleteersinthelate1980s,manyifnotmostTibetanslivingin
TibetanIndigeneity:Translations,Resemblances,andUptake 81
Tibettodaybelievethatcompleteindependenceisanimpossibledream. DoTibetanleaders,intellectuals,andotherswhoaccept(orareresigned to)theirstatusascitizensofthePRCinvokeadiscourseofindigeneity? HowdoesindigeneitytranslateintotheChinesecontextandisituseful forTibetans?Therestoftheessayturnstothesequestions.
TranslatingIndigeneityinChina Like the governments of Indonesia (Li 2000), India (Karlsson 2003), andotherpostcolonialAsiancountries,thePRCgovernmenthaslong insistedthatthecategoryof“indigenouspeoples”isirrelevantbecause all of the nation’s citizens are equally indigenous. China’s official positionhasbeenthat,“asinthemajorityofAsiancountries,thevarious nationalities in China have all lived for eons on Chinese territory. Althoughthereisnoindigenouspeoples’questioninChina,theChinese Governmentandpeoplehaveeverysympathywithindigenouspeoples’ historicalwoes”(Kingsbury1998:417–418).AlthoughChinahassent representativestoUNworkinggroupsonIndigenouspopulations,its ownethnicminoritieshavenotbeenallowedtoparticipateasethnic representatives,againbecauseChinadoesnotconsiderthemindigenous (Gladney1997). Despitethisofficialposition,theEnglish-languagetermindigenous isinfactbeingusedbyafewscholar-activistcirclesinChina.Ofthese oneofthemostvisibleistheCenterforBiodiversityandIndigenous Knowledge(CBIK),inYunnan,whichhashadlong-standingtieswith U.S.-basedscholarsaswellassupportfrominternationalorganizations suchastheFordFoundation.ExecutivedirectorofCBIKXuJianchu haspublishednumerouspapersaboutindigenousknowledgeandits cultural and environmental importance, with members of various minorityminzuinChina,andwithWesternsocialscientists. The question of translation, both literal and figurative, is thus of greatinteresthere.If“indigenousknowledge”isusedwhenspeaking toaninternationalaudience,whatconceptisusedwhenspeakingto anationalone?CBIK’sChinesenameis“CenterforResearchonBiodiversityandTraditionalKnowledge.”Indigenousbecomestradition,a generaltermthatcanbeusedinreferencetoboththeHanandnonHan.Infact,however,CBIK’sresearchfocusesexclusivelyonnon-Han groups,afactthatisexplainedonitswebsiteinthisway(inChinese): “CBIK’sTraditionalKnowledgeProgramisconcernedwiththeimpactof socioeconomicchangesuponthefutureofChina’sSouthwestminority minzu.”Whileusingtraditionalinitsnameasaglossforindigenous,
82
Emily T. Yeh
thecenterisalsobuildinganunderstandingofminorityminzuasbeing equivalenttoindigenousasusedinglobalcontexts.Thisappearsonthe surfacenotsodifferentfromthewayadivasiis“indigenous”inIndia orthewaymasyarakatadatisusedasthetranslationforindigenous in Indonesia. However, I argue that the specific histories and forms ofnationalclassificationprojectsmakeadifference,andthat,atleast fornow,thecategoryofminzucannotdotheworkofindigeneityfor TibetansinthePRC.
MinzuandAutonomy The genealogy of minzu cannot be separated from the history of nationalismandthetransitionbetweentheManchuQingempireand whatisnowthePRC.TheQingcoveredahugeterritorythatincluded notjustHandominatedareas,butalsovastpartsofinnerAsia.Unlike theMiao,Yi,andothergroupsofdistinctpeopleswhowerenotlarge orwidespreadenoughtocompetewiththeQing,fiveconstituencies— theManchu,Mongol,Chinese,Tibetan,andMuslims—wereseenas representing particularly powerful and distinct cultural traditions. TibetansandMongolsweregivenspecialtreatmentbytheQingvis-àvisgroupssuchastheMiao,ahistoricaldifferencethatcontinuesto haveeffectstoday(Tuttle2005). AftertheQingempirefellin1911,ittookaneducationalcampaign by Chinese nationalists to develop concern for Tibetan territory amongtheChinese.Inotherwords,itwasnotinevitableformodern China’s boundaries to be the same as those of the Qing empire; rather,considerableworkhadtobedone,someofwhichincludedthe promotionofdiscoursesofracial,national,andreligiousunity(Tuttle 2005).SunYat-sen,leaderoftheRepublicanmovementthattoppled theQing,developedatheory,rifewithcontradictions,ofminzuzhuyi, or “nationalism”; it expressed a racial nationalism embodying ideas of both race as lineage and race as nation (Dikötter 1992). On the onehand,thenotionofaHanminzuwasdevelopedtomobilizethe vastmajorityofpeopleagainsttheManchuQing,withtheideathat eachminzushoulddecideitsowndestinyandnotberuledbyothers (Gladney 1994). On the other hand, Sun also claimed that a larger “Chineserace”(Zhonghuaminzu)wasdistinctfromallother“races”in theworld,andwasitselfcomposedofthefivemajor“races”oftheHan, Manchu, Mongol, Tibetan, and Muslim. Later, Guomingdang leader ChiangKai-shek(1947:40,inSmith1996:329),furtherstated,“that therearefivepeoplesdesignatedinChinaisnotduetodifferencein raceorblood,buttoreligionandgeographicenvironment.”
TibetanIndigeneity:Translations,Resemblances,andUptake 83
The transition between the Qing empire and the modern nationstateledtotheemergenceoftwodistinctnationalisms,whichLouisa ScheincallsHannationalism—“concernedwiththeboundariesbetween peopleswithintheshiftingterritoryoftheChinesepolity,specifically betweenHanandthosetheydesignatedas‘barbarians’”—andChinese nationalism,which“roseinresponsetoincidencesofforeignimperialist aggressionthatpromptedaunifyingwithinthephysicalboundaryof Chinaagainsttheoutside”(2000:108).Againsttheforeignimperialists, allofChina’sminzu,includingTibetans,weresaidtobeunited,and partofthesamelarger“Chineserace.” HoweverusefulthisdiscoursewasfortheHan,itsutilitywaslimited forTibetans.AsUradynBulagpointsout,intheofficialnamesofboth theRepublicofChina(ZhonghuaMinguo)andthePeople’sRepublic ofChina(ZhonghuaRenminGongheguo),theMiddle(Zhong)Kingdom(guo)isalwayshyphenatedwithHua,atermthatisusedonlyto denotetheHan:“ItisthisinseparabilityofHanorHuafrom‘China’ thatmakesminorityidentificationwithChinasoambivalentordifficult. In English we can write Han Chinese, but it is impossible to hyphenateothernationalitieswithChinese.MongolChineseorTibetan Chinese are impossibilities” (2002: 18). In the 1930s, a number of Tibetans,particularlyfromtheeasternareaofBatang,triedtoshape Sun Yat-sen’s work to fit their own interests. Applying the logic of “nationalautonomy”totheirownsituationleadtoashort-livedand unsuccessful movement of “Khampa rule for Kham,” in which the Khampas demanded autonomy from both China and Central Tibet (Tuttle2005:149;Goldstein,Sherap,andSiebenschuh2004). MinzuwasalsousedbytheChineseCommunistParty(CCP),which earlyonadoptedLenin’sapproachofallowingself-determinationfor everyminzu.ThiswascodifiedinArticle14ofthe1931CCPconstitution, whichrecognizedtherighttoself-determination,includingcomplete separationandtheformationofanindependentstate,foreachminority minzu(Smith1996).Indeed,BabaPhuntsogWangyal(fromBatang) foundedasecretTibetanCommunistPartyinthe1930s,withtheideaof anindependentTibetafteracommunistrevolution(Goldstein,Sherap, andSiebenschuh2004:47).Later,whenpoliticalcircumstancesmade theirpartyuntenable,heandseveralotherscreatedaTibetanbranchof theCCP,whichhebelieved“wouldleadtotherestructuringofKham andpossiblythewholeTibetanarea...asanautonomousrepublicthat wouldfunctioninawaysimilartotheautonomoussocialistrepublics intheSovietUnion(2004:125). WhentheCCPcametopower,however,itrepudiateditspromiseof self-determinationwiththedeclarationthatthe“concreteconditions”
84
Emily T. Yeh
ofChinadictatedthattherewouldbenooptionofeithersecessionor afederatedsystem.Instead“autonomous”units,whichweretohave somemeasureofculturalandpoliticalautonomy,wereestablishedat theprovincial,prefectural,andcountylevels,inplaceswhereminorities wereconcentrated.Asoneofthemostpopulousgroups,Tibetanswere giventhe(provincial-level)TAR,roughlyconsistentwiththeareadirectly underthecontrolofthegovernmentinLhasaintheearly20thcentury, andcoveringabouthalfofthePRC’stotalTibetanpopulation.However, thereisinfactlittleautonomy;theTARhasconsistentlyhadmuch moredirectcentralgovernmentinvolvementinitspolitical,cultural, andeconomicaffairsthanotherprovinces(Yeh2003).Nevertheless, the TAR is one of the few “autonomous regions” where minorities outnumbertheHan;officialstatisticsclaimthatover96percentofthe TARpopulationisTibetan.However,officialdocumentsabouttheTAR alsoalwaysdescribeitasa“multiethnicregion,”inhabitednotonlyby TibetansandHan,butalsoHui(ChineseMuslims)andsmallergroups suchastheLhopaandMenpa.Thus,whereasindigenousculturesare oftenframedspatially,incarceratedinplaceoratleasttiedtospecific piecesoflandornature(Baviskarthisvolume),thePRC’sdiscourseof minzuandautonomysuggestthatitisjustas“natural”fortheHan astheTibetanstoliveintheTAR,andforTibetanstoliveoutsideof theTAR.
TheLimitsofDifference SoonafterthefoundingofthePRC,minoritieswereaskedtostepforward forrecognition.Morethan400groupsapplied,leadingtointensivefield investigationsbyresearchteamsofhistorians,linguists,ethnologists, andeconomists,whoweresenttodeterminewhetherthegroupsthat appliedwereactuallydistinctminzu,orsubgroupsoftheHanorother minorityminzu.Theteamsmadedecisionsaboutrecognitionbasedon Stalin’sdefinitionofanation,accordingtowhichanationisagroup thathasastablecommunityofpeople,washistoricallyconstituted, andisformedonthebasisofcommonlanguage,territory,economic life, and “psychological make-up manifested in a common culture” (Litzinger 2000; Mackerras 1994). By 1979, the team had narrowed theofficialnumberdownto55minoritygroups,plustheHan,who accountforabout92percentofChina’spopulation. ThePRC’sofficialpositionhasalwaysbeenthatitisamultinational state.However,aftertheAnti-RightistCampaignof1957andthroughout theCulturalRevolution,therewasanationwidemovementtosuppress
TibetanIndigeneity:Translations,Resemblances,andUptake 85
differenceandachieveculturalhomogenization;thisperiodemphasized theideologythatminzuwouldultimatelydisappear,andthatthefaster the “nationality problem” was solved—by assimilating minorities into the Chinese Nation—the better. Indeed, despite his very early revolutionary credentials, Baba Phuntsog Wangyal was arrested in 1958andheldinsolitaryconfinementfor18years,forfusingTibetan nationalismtoCommunistideals. Sincetheculturalandeconomicliberalizationofthe1980s,difference has again become acceptable and, especially since the mid-1990s, encouraged with the commodification of the “exotic” ethnic other (seeSchein2000).Themorelenientpoliticalatmosphereandcritique of “big Han chauvinism” after the end of the Cultural Revolution encouragedasignificantnumberofHan-identifiedpeopletoreclassify themselvesasbelongingtootherminzu.Gladney(1997)suggeststhat sincethe1990sithasbecome“populartobe‘ethnic’intoday’sChina.” Insomecasesthosewhoaremarkedasminorityminzuhaveindeed beenabletotakeadvantageofpermissiontohavemorechildren,pay fewertaxes,andotherprivileges.Thisshifthasbeenaccompaniedby a tendency increasingly to translate minzu into English as “ethnic” ratherthan“nationality.”Inthepastfewyears,ithasalsofacilitated theemergenceofTibetchicandmassdomestictourismtoTibet.In trendy neighborhoods of major Chinese cities, one can now find boutiques selling Tibetan trinkets (mostly imported from Nepal and India),similartooneshawkedinboutiquesandstreetfairsintheUnited States.Tibetsells,asevidencedbyShangri-lawine,Tibetgrassbrand ginseng-berryjuice,TibetanFragrantspringsorghumliquor,andthe growingpopularityofTibetanmedicine—everythingfrompain-relief plasterto“Tibetansecret”potionsforcuringimpotence.TheNewAge flavorofthiscommodificationofanexoticizedTibetanculturebearsa strongresemblancetothemarketingofindigenousness(butnotethnic nationalism)aroundtheworld. AlthoughthecommodificationofTibetancultureisnowencouraged, the deep entanglement of Tibetan culture with religion makes the spacepermittedbythestate’snewneoliberalmulticulturalrecognition precariousatbest.Monasteriesandtemplesarekeytouristdestinations, and advertisements for everything from incense to herbal candy to cellphonesfeatureTibetanmonkswiththerelevantproduct.Atthe sametimehowever,sincethemid-1990s,allgovernmentofficials(not justCCPmembers),theirrelatives,andstudentsofallageshavebeen bannedfromparticipatinginreligiouspracticeinLhasa.Morerecently, monksandnunshavebeenbannedfromsettingfootonthecampus
86
Emily T. Yeh
ofTibetUniversitybecauseoftheiralleged“splittist”tendencies(see Barnett2006formoredetails).Religioncanbesoldtotourists,butits practicebylocalsisincreasinglyrestricted. TheburgeoningpopularityofTibetanreligionamongtheHanisalso ofparticularstateconcern.Indeed,officialsfoundthelargenumber ofHanChinesefollowersofKhenpoJigmePhuntsokinLarungGar, Serthar, Sichuan particularly threatening. His status among the Han contributedtotheirdecisiontoimposestrictcontrolsonhisinstitute, evictathousandofhisHandisciples,anddemolishseveralthousandof hisfollowers’homesin2001.Thisconcernwiththegrowingnumber ofHandisciplesofTibetanlamasreflectsnotonlyageneralconcern withanychallengestostateauthority(asalsowithFalunGong)but alsoaspecificconcernaboutTibetanreligiousleaders,especiallyafter Agya Rinpoche, abbot of Kumbum Monastery, and the seventeenth KarmapaleftChinain1998and1999fortheUnitedStatesandIndia, respectively.Bothwerehigh-rankinglamasfavoredbythestate,and believedtobeloyaltoChina;theirunexpecteddeparturehasledto furtherrestrictionsoncontactbetweenTibetanreligiousleadersliving abroadandTibetanBuddhistsinChina(Kapstein2004). Therecent“ethnicization”ofTibetanrepresentationsinChinahas thusnoterasedtheimportanceofminzutuanjieasahegemonicdevice tomanageacoercive“unity.”Neoliberaleconomicpolicieshaveallowed avalorizationofTibetanculturethatcontrastswitholderrepresentations ofTibetansasbarbaricandbackward,butthesenewexpressionsand claimsofculturaldifference,andanycorrespondingrights,canonly bemadewithintheboundsofminzutuanjie.Bulag’sanalysisofthe problem for Mongolians in today’s China applies equally well to Tibetans;bothgroupsoccupystrategicbordersandhaveinternational tiesaboutwhichChinaisconcerned: If,fromthenationalminoritypointofview,theirdemandforgreater autonomyisunderstoodasapleaforacceptanceofamorediverseChina, onethatgrantsequalitytominorities,guaranteeingtheirculturaldignity anddifference,thecounterargumentfromthemajoritarianstateisthat such demands threaten minzu tuanjie and are in effect minzu fenlie. Thesubtextisthatthedemandforgreaterautonomyandrightsiseither the demand of a handful of reactionaries of a minzu, or is instigated byimperialistsinordertoundermineChina’ssovereignty.(Bulag2002: 13–14)
Ineachuniquecontext,“indigenous”leaderscanhopetomakea differenceinstatepolicy—whetherindemandinggreaterrespectfor
TibetanIndigeneity:Translations,Resemblances,andUptake 87
collectiverights,recognitionofculturaldifference,orreappropriation ofphysical,cultural,orotherresources—onlybyspeakinginaregister thatcanbeheardby,andmakessensetoanationalaudience(Tsing thisvolume).WithinthePRC,minzuiscurrentlytheonlyavailable framefortalkingaboutculturaldifference.ThisiswhyCBIK’s(English) “indigenousknowledge”programtranslatesintoaprogram(inChinese) concerned with the traditional knowledge of minority minzu. But note that CBIK’s goal is not to reappropriate cultural knowledge for indigenousgroups(seeCastree2004)but,rather,onlytounderstandand documentit.Thisallowsittofitwellintominzudiscourse,according towhich(asoneverylargesigninLhasa’sJokhangSquareproclaims) “Whatbelongstominzu,alsobelongstotheworld.” Tobeasuccessfuluserofminzudiscourse,onecannotmakedemands altogether outside the purview of state discourse. Herein lies one of themaindifficultiesintranslating“indigenous”concernsintominzu. Whereas many indigenous struggles work around the mutually acknowledged notion of a historical debt or deficit after conquest, the PRCinsiststhatTibetanswereliberated(fromlocal“feudal”overlords), notoppressed,bythePRC.Itisnowonder,then,thatthenotionof indigenousness is rejected by the Chinese state, according to which Tibetans are grateful for liberation, not suffering from the effects of colonization. TherefusaltocompareorlinkthesituationofTibetanswiththose ofothermarginalizedpeoplesaroundtheworldisapowerfulreason whythestatehasnotacceptedindigeneityasapalatablealternativeto amoreexplicitlynationalistdiscourse.Alsoatissueisthewayinwhich indigenousgroupsbuildtransnationallinkagesandallianceswithother similarly identified groups to achieve their goals. The Chinese state deniesthatTibetansneedtostruggleforanythingthatthestatedoes not already provide,8 and frequently accuses international advocacy groups as well as foreign governments of “meddling” into domestic ChineseaffairswhenevertheissueofTibetisraised.Boththesevere restrictionsonTibetancross-borderconnections,especiallythoselinkingtoTibetansontheoutside(especiallytheDalaiLama),andcurrent state policies toward Tibetan religion, are rather incompatible with globalpracticesofautonomyforindigenousgroups.Atthesametime, thestateadamantlymaintainsthatTibetansalreadyhaveautonomy, intheTARandautonomousprefecturesinotherprovinces;thisfurther discourages articulations of an indigenous identity based on special culturalrights.Theofficialpositionisaninsistencethatwhateveris nowinplaceisalreadyprovidingallthespecialrightsandaffirmative action(suchaslowerstandardsforcollegeentranceexaminations)that
88
Emily T. Yeh
Tibetans need and should rightfully ask for. To demand more is to attempttosplitthenation.
TibetanMinzuinPractice Tibetanimaginationsofminzuareshapedinmultipleways,including throughregulationofthelanguageofdifferenceandbelonging.One examplewasanattemptinvillagesaroundLhasa,in2000–01,bylocal officialstoreplaceuseofthetermrgyamiwithrgyarigsineveryday conversation.BothtermsrefertoHanChinese.Howeverthetermrigs meanstype,kind,orlineage,whereasmisimplymeans“person.”Mi rigs,aspecifictypeofperson,isnowthestandardTibetantranslation oftheChineseminzu;andbodrigsisusedinadditiontotheolderterm bodpa(inwhich“pa”isanominalizer)tomean“Tibetan.”Rgyanag isthetermhistoricallyusedtorefertoChina,asdistinctfromTibet. Thus,thetermrgyareferssomewhatambiguouslytoboth“Han”and “Chinese,”asthesewerehistoricallyconflatedandtherewasnoneed to distinguish between the two. In the contemporary context, rgya nagrefersnottotheentireterritoryofthePRC,butratheronlytothe primarilyHanareasoftheeast;inChinese,itsequivalentisneidi,“inner land.”Tibetisnotconsideredpartofrgyanag,butitispartofZhongguo, or“China.”Theattempttoreplacergyamiwithrgyarigsisanattempt todiffusethesenseofOthernessofrgya,andfosterinsteadasenseof beingpartofthesame“family,”ofbelongingtoalargerChinathat encompassesmanydifferentminzu,ormirigs.Rgya,likebod,aremerely particularkindsofnationalities(rigs)ratherthanseparate“peoples.” RgyarigcanonlyrefertoHanethnicity,whereasrgyamirunstherisk ofbeingunderstoodas“Chineseperson.”Thelattermaycarryresidual implicationsofsignificantdifference,andofnotbelonginginTibet, whereastheformerdoesnot. HowdoTibetansunderstandminzuinpractice?Considerthecase ofDrolma,awell-educatedyoungTibetanwomanwhogrewupinthe urbancenterofXining,inQinghaiprovince: When I was young I didn’t think there was any difference between TibetanandHan.Ididn’tthinkitwasabigdealbeingTibetan,sincewe werejustanotherminzu.Butotherpeoplewantedtomakemedifferent. WhenIgooutwithmyfriendsinthecityanddresslikeacitygirl,no onebelievesIamTibetan.EvenwhenItellthem,theyalwaysaskme “which one of your parents is Han, your father or your mother?” ... TheycongratulatemefornotbeinglikeaTibetan....Wheneverarural
TibetanIndigeneity:Translations,Resemblances,andUptake 89
Tibetangetsonacitybus,peopleholdtheirnosesandwalkawayand makeveryrudecomments....Istartedtofeel:okay,IamTibetan.I’m notatalllikeyouHanpeople....NowI’mproudofbeingTibetan....I thinkit’sveryimportantforustokeepourTibetanculture.
ForDrolma,comingtoidentifywithherTibetannesswasaprocessof beingsubject,ontheonehand,tonegativestereotypesofTibetansas backward,lazy,dirty,orbarbaric,and,ontheotherhand,aprocess of being misrecognized as Han. Her increasingly strong feelings of separationandculturaldifferencefromtheHanChinesemeancoming tothinkofTibetansassomethingotherthan“justanotherminzu.”The differenceshenowunderstandstheretobebetweentheTibetanand theChinesecannotbecontainedwithinthecategoryofminzu.For someTibetans,then,theconceptofminzuisaninadequatecontainer ofculturaldifference;itdoesnothavethepowertodothepoliticaland culturalworkthat“indigeneous”doesinothersettings. Atthesametimethatminzuisseenbysomeasaninadequatemarker fordifference,othersworryaboutthepoliticaldangersofevenusing minzu discourse at all. Consider, for example, the problem of caterpillarfungus(Cordycepssinensis).UsedinChinesemedicineandfound extensively in Tibetan pastures above 13,000 feet, caterpillar fungus hasbecomeoneofthemostimportantsourcesofhouseholdincome throughouttheTibetanplateauinthepastdecade.WithpricesinLhasa nowat10,000–30,000RMB($1,200–$3,600)perkilogram,increasing numbersofconflictsareoccurringoverrightstoharvest.Althoughall oftheuserightstothehighpasturesonwhichcordycepsarefound havebeenlegallyallocatedtolocal(Tibetan)householdsandvillages, manycaseshavebeenreportedofgovernmentofficials“selling”the mountains to private entrepreneurs; of government officials selling harvesting permits to outsiders without local consent and without sharingtheprofits;andofoutsiders,includingHanandHui,harvesting withoutpermissionorcompensationtolocalresidents.Inmanyways, thiswouldappeartobeaclassicproblemofindigenouscontrolover landandnaturalresources.Andifminzuisthewayinwhichindigeneity isbesttranslatedforanationalaudience,thenTibetanstrugglesover theirrighttocontrollocallandoughttobeframedbyminzu.Yet,it isnot.ATibetansocialscientistandPartymemberwhohasstudied theproblemofcaterpillarfungus,andwhoiswell-positionedenough tohavetheearofsomegovernmentofficials,explainedthistomeas follows:“Themostimportantthingistohavesomenewlawspreventing outsidersfromharvestingcaterpillarfunguswithoutpermits.Actually,
90
Emily T. Yeh
thesearebasicallyHanandHui.Whatweneedtodoistokeeptheland fortheTibetans.Butwecan’tsaythat.Wecan’tsaythe‘Han,’‘Hui,’ ‘Tibetan’andsoforth.Wecan’ttalkaboutdifferentminzu.Wehaveto findanotherwaytoaddresstheproblemwithoutmentioningminzu.” Forhim,toevenframeconflictsasaminzuquestionwouldbetorisk beingaccusedofminzufenlie. Minzucanonlybeminzutuanjie,analwaysalready–existingunity. ThecaseofWoeser,aTibetanauthorwritinginChinese,illustratesthe hardboundariesofminzutuanjieandwhatisconsideredacceptable differencewithinthePRCtoday.ThedaughterofPartymembers,college educatedwithadegreeinChineseliterature,andanauthorwhowrites onlyinChinese,Woeseris,likemanyothersofhergeneration,amodel ofnationalinclusion.Untilrecently,sheheldagovernmentposition aseditoroftheofficialjournaloftheLiteratureAssociationoftheTAR. Hermostrecentanthology,NotesonTibet,isacollectionofessaysabout ordinarypeopleandtheabsurditiesofeverydaylifeinTibet.Thebook carefullyavoidsanyoutrightdemandforpoliticalandculturalrights; thereisnomentionofTibetannationalismorindependence.Forthe mostpart,itstaysawayfromexplicitattentiontominorityissues,but inafewcases,descriptionsofeverydaylifeleadhertodiscussminzu. Forexample,inoneessayabouttwoChinesetouriststakingunwelcome photographsintheJokhangtemple,shewrites Phurbuwasevenmoreangryandsaidtohim,“Nophotos...” Then the other man was furious. “Why can’t we take photos of you? Whatrighthaveyougottostopusfromtakingphotos?”hesaidloudly, withhisfacered... ...Thesetwomenseemtothinktheyhavetheright....Surely,traveling inthelandofoneofthe[55]minoritiesyouhavetherighttodowhat youwant.Whocanstopyou?(TIN2004:252)
AnotheressaydescribesanincidentinwhichaTibetanpolicemanjoins aChinesepolicemaninbeatingtwoTibetanmenonthestreet: “Whydoyoubeatpeople?”...someoneshoutedfromthecrowd... “‘What?Saythatagain,’thepolicemansaidinTibetan,wearinganevil lookonhisface...[oneofthemen]wasbeatenbeyondrecognition.... TheypushedthecryingTibetanmanintotheircar....Together...[the TibetanandChinesepolicemen]watchedasthecardroveaway.Atthat moment,IwasremindedofthefavoriterhetoricofthePartySecretary Ragdi,“Chinesenationalit[y]andTibetannationalit[y]areinseparable.”
TibetanIndigeneity:Translations,Resemblances,andUptake 91
ThefaceoftheHanpolicemanwasfulloftriumphantpride.(TIN2004: 249)
SoonafteritwaspublishedinGuangdongin2003,thebookattracted the attention of censors and was banned, first in the TAR and then throughoutChina.BecausethebookpraisedtheDalaiLamaas“the person who is loved, revered, and missed by all Tibetans,” Woeser wasaccusedof“exaggeratingandbeautifyingthepositivefunctionof religioninsociallife,”andof“indulginginnostalgiafortheoldTibet.” Further,thecontentsweresaidtoreveal“arigidthinkingonnationalism andopinionsthatareharmfultotheunificationandsolidarityofour nation”; the book was “divorced from correct political principles” (Wang2004).Woeserandherfamilyweresubsequentlythesubjectto “thoughtwork”(sixianggongzuo),aimedathavingher“makeherselfa newperson”(chongxinzuoren).RefusingtodenouncetheDalaiLama, however,Woeserinsteadlostherjobandwent“inexile”toBeijing, whereshecurrentlyliveswithoutincome,socialsecurity,job,oroption toapplyforapassporttoleavethecountry.AsWang(2004)pointsout, therearefarfeweroptionsforeconomicsurvivalinTibetcomparedto otherpartsofChina: Forpeoplelivinginfreesocietiesorintoday’sinlandChina,thesignificance of this kind of punishment to Tibetans might not be clearly understood...Tibetanditssocietyhasbeenstructuredtocompletely relyfinanciallyonBeijing...onlywheninductedasapartofthesystem canonehaveachancetobecomeaprofessionalworkinginthefieldsof culture;otherwise,thereisevennoguaranteeofbasicsurvival.
Withthisexample,Idonotmeantosuggestthatanoppositional voiceistheonly“authentically”Tibetanone.ManyTibetansinthePRC participateinstructuresofpower;well-educatedcadres(asWoeserwas untilrecently)andCCPmembersareamongthemostsuccessful.Not allarecriticalofminzudiscourseorpolicy;notallstandinthesame relationshiptoTibetanandChinesenationalisms.Myconcernherehas beentoshowthat,forthosewhowouldevengentlyquestion“national unity,”oraskforgreaterculturalrights(suchastherighttoopenly praisetheDalaiLama),respectforculturaldifference,ordemandany sortofself-determination—thatis,forthosewhouseminzudiscourse todotheworkof“indigeneity”—thereisatpresent,verylimitedspace inwhichtomaneuver.
92
Emily T. Yeh
Conclusion Inthischapter,Ihaveagreedthatindigeneity,asaconceptthatis“out there”transnationally,hasnotbeentakenuptoasignificantdegree byTibetanseitherinexileorinTibet,fordifferentreasons.Thenotion of nativeness and belonging within a larger existing state does not helpexileTibetansdotheirpoliticalworkofdemandingaseparate, independentcountry.WithintheboundariesofthePRC,termsreferring tonativenessdonotsignifyascaleofidentificationneededtomake collectiveclaimsaboutpoliticalorculturalrights,andarenotrecognized byanationalaudience.Instead,thehistoryofnationalclassification withinChinamakesminzutherelevantcategoryformakingclaims about difference. And indeed, scholars within China now who use EnglishtermssuchasindigenousknowledgeexplaintheirworkinChinese withthetermminzu. However, minzu does not quite do the work of “indigeneity” for Tibetans.Ontheonehand,insomecontextsandforsomeTibetans, minzu is too confined, too narrow to contain and express their felt culturaldifferenceandtheirdesireforgreaterculturalrightsandrespect. Beingaminorityminzumeansstandinginahegemonicallydefined relationshipofharmoniousnessandunitytothemajorityminzu,the Han;italsomeansstandinginacertainrelationshiptotheother54 state-definedminorityminzu.Butthusfar,themostimportantsocial scaleofidentificationandsolidarityforTibetansiswiththecategory of“Tibetans”(itselfanaggregateofmanysmaller,disparatesocioterritorialidentifications).Identificationdoesnotextendtoanysignificant extenttoascaleencompassingtheother54minorityminzu,norto otherindigenousgroupsaroundtheworld.Thereisnoequivalentin thePRC,inotherwords,toorganizationssuchasthearchipelago-wide indigenousadvocacynetworkformedinIndonesiain1999(theAliansi MasyarakatAdatNusantrara).Theonlysignificantnetworksthatlink TibetanswithotherminorityminzuinChinaaredefinedbythestate, aspartofminzutuanjie.Ontheotherhand,inothercontextsandfor otherTibetans,phrasingdemandsforgreaterrightsordefenseoflocal controlofnaturalresourcesintermsofminzuistoopoliticallyrisky. Demandingmoreautonomyormoreculturalrightswhereoneisalready supposed to have as much autonomy or rights as is needed, invites accusationsofnationalsplittism.Thus,itisnotaneffectivetool. Itisinthesesensesandforthesereasons,then,thatTibetanshave notbeeninterpellatedasindigenoussubjects.Nevertheless,Idonot suggestthatthisisapermanentorunchangeablestateofaffairs,nor
TibetanIndigeneity:Translations,Resemblances,andUptake 93
thatamoreexplicitTibetanindigeneitymaynotcomeintobeingin thefuture.Thearticulationofindigenousidentityiscontingentand withoutguarantees.Politicalconditionsandnationalimaginationscan change.Indeed,despitethelackofuptakeofanexplicitlyindigenous identity, the growing strength of claims and representations about Tibetan environmental stewardship and ecological wisdom resonate stronglywithindigenousformationsaroundtheworld. Thecurrenttenorofexilediscourse,whichrejectstheassumptions ofindigeneityinfavorfordemandsofcompleteindependence,seem unlikelytochangeintheshortterm.However,astheDalaiLamahimself stressedduringhis2006KalachakrateachingsinAmravati,India,the futureofTibetdependsontheinitiativeandliesinthehandsofthose livinginTibet.ForTibetanslivinginthePRC,thequestionisnotso much an explicit rejection of indigeneity as the very limited space currentlyallowedforanyclaimsofculturalandhistoricaldifference, andforrightsbasedonthoseclaims.AlthoughtheTibetMovementand governmentinexileplayimportantpoliticalrolesintheinternational arena,theongoingattacksontheDalaiLamaandforeign“interference” as“splittism”andunwantedmeddlingintoChinesedomesticaffairs suggeststhatthebesthopeformoreautonomyandculturalrightsfor TibetansmayverywellliewithHanChinesecitizens,workingtoward thesegoalswithinChinaitself. Growing interest among mainstream Chinese in Tibetan culture, religion,andnatureisopeningupanewspaceforTibetanstomake claimsonlocalresourcesandculturalpractices.Thusfar,theseopenings arebeingmadewithoutthediscourseofindigeneity,butifapolitical spaceforitweretobecomeavailable,indigeneitycouldopenupsome strategicpossibilities(aswellaspitfalls).Forexample,currentefforts by Chinese environmentalists working with international NGOs to codifyTibetansacredlandsasanofficiallyrecognized,legalformof communityenvironmentalprotectionintheNationalProtectedAreas Law,fitsverywellintobroaderdemandsforcollectiverightstoland intheglobaldiscourseofindigeneity.Anothernewphenomenonin Tibetanareas,thesaleof(userightsto)collectivelandbygovernment officialstothehighestbidder(almostalwaysHanbusinessmen),against thedesiresandlegalrightsofthelocalTibetans,raisesanewspecter of land dispossession, another issue common to many indigenous groups. Asinotherpartsoftheworld,then,collaborationbetweenenvironmental activists and marginalized peoples around questions of environmentalprotectionandlandrightscouldeventuallybeacatalyst
94
Emily T. Yeh
forsuccessfulactivism,aswellasanewconjunctureinwhichTibetan strugglesandrepresentationsarerearticulatedwiththeexplicitlanguage of indigeneity. Indigeneity would be, for cosmopolitan Han activists, both safer and more appealing than the more nationalist Tibetanalternative,whilealsoallowingforamuchbroaderrangeof possibilitiesofstrategyandactionthanthecurrentdiscourseofminzu tuanjieallows.ThiscouldfacilitatetheTibetanuptakeofanindigenous identity.Thoughbynomeansaguaranteedorevenverylikelyoutcome, suchanalliancebetweenTibetansandwell-positionedand(relatively) politicallyprotectedChineseactivists,basedonthepremisesofTibetan indigeneity, may also have the potential to lead to greater Tibetan autonomy.
Notes Acknowledgements.Thankstoalloftheparticipantsoftheconferenceonwhich thisvolumeisbased,andparticularlytoMarisoldelaCadenaandOrinStarn, fortheirstimulatingconversationandveryhelpfulsuggestions. 1. In exile, the term bod pa is used for all Tibetans, but within Tibet, it is still common for most people to use bod pa in reference only to people fromcentralTibet,inparticulartheLhasaandLhokaareas.OtherTibetans, thoughrecognizedasbeingpartofalargercollectivegroup(whichisoftenleft unnamed,orsometimesreferredtoasbodrigs)arereferredtobytheirregional names,forexample,Amdowa,Khampa,Tsangpa,Dopa. 2. ThisisfromaWhitePaperonecologicalimprovementandenvironmental protectioninTibet.StateCouncil,March2003,accessedathttp://www.chinaembassy.org/eng/zt/zfbps/t36547.htm,December23,2006. 3. ThisisfromaCI–Chinabrochure,2000. 4. “Rules and specific places for the voluntary association of Gonjo Zedingsengdzongtoprotecttheenvironment.” 5. Thisacontestedfigure.AlthoughtheTibetangovernmentinexilehas consistently claimed a population of 6 million, the PRC reported a Tibetan populationwithinitsbordersof4.6millionin1990,and5.4millionin2006; another150,000liveinexile. 6. Tenzin Namgyal Tethong, “Shaping the future of Tibet—Tibetan SelfDeterminationandIndividualActivism”conference,accessedathttp://www. tibetanyouth.org/futureoftibet/interview_tnt.htm,December23,2006.
TibetanIndigeneity:Translations,Resemblances,andUptake 95
7. “Dalai Lama comments on Tibet issue” Chung-Kuo Shih-pao, Taiwan; March7,1999,inBBC/SWB,March11,1999;quotedfromSaumtan2002. 8. A German NGO dedicated to fixing and preserving historic houses in LhasawasexpelledreportedlyafterTARleaderswereangeredbyatelevision showinwhichlocalresidentswhowereinterviewedabouttheirworkexpressed immensegratitudetotheorganization.Accordingtoonegovernmentofficial, “theywantedtoknowwhythelocalswerepraisingtheGermansinsteadof ChinaforallChinahasdone.”
References Atisha, Tenzin P. 1991. The Tibetan approach to ecology. Electronic document,http://www.tibet.com/Eco/eco7.html,accessedDecember 23,2006. Barnett,Robert.1998.Untitledessay.InTheTibetans:Astruggletosurvive, editedbySteveLehman,178–196.NewYork:UmbrageEditions. ——.2006.Modernity,religionandurbanspaceincontemporaryLhasa. PaperpresentedattheAssociationofAsianStudiesannualmeeting, April2006. Bulag,UradynE.2002.TheMongolsatChina’sedge:Historyandthepolitics ofnationalunity.Boulder,CO:RowmanandLittlefield. Castree,Noel.2004.Differentialgeographies:Place,indigenousrights and“local”resources.PoliticalGeography23:133–167. Chanda,AbhikKumar.2002.Tibetanyouthincreasinglyfrustratedwith credoofnon-violence.Electronicdocument,http://www.tibet.ca/en/ wtnarchive/2000/2/21_1.html,accessedDecember23,2006. ChiangKai-shek.1947.China’sdestiny.NewYork:RoyPublishers. Clifford, James. 2001. Indigenous articulations. Contemporary Pacific 13(2):468–490. Dikötter,Frank.1992.ThediscourseofraceinmodernChina.Stanford: StanfordUniversityPress. Dirlik,Arif,andRoxannePrazniak.2001.Introduction:Culturalidentity andthepoliticsofplace.Placesandpoliticsinanageofglobalization, editedbyR.PrazniakandA.Drilik,3–14.Boulder,CO:Rowmanand Littlefield. Gladney, Dru. 1994. Representing nationality in China: Refiguring majority/minority identities. The Journal of Asian Studies 53 (1): 92–123. ——.1997.ThequestionofminorityidentityandindigeneityinpostcolonialChina.CulturalSurvivalQuarterly21(3):50–54.
96
Emily T. Yeh
Goldstein,Melvyn,DaweiSherap,andWilliamR.Siebenschuh.2004. A Tibetan revolutionary: The political life and times of Bapa Phuntso Wangye.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Hall,Stuart.1996.Onpostmodernismandarticulation:Aninterview withStuartHall.InStuartHall:Criticaldialoguesinculturalstudies, editedbyD.MorleyandK.Chen,131–150.London:Routledge. Herzer,Eva.2002.OptionsforTibet’sfuturepoliticalstatus:Self-governance throughanautonomousarrangement.NewDelhi:TibetanParliamentary andPolicyResearch. Huber, Toni. 1997. Green Tibetans: A brief social history. In Tibetan cultureinthediaspora,editedbyF.Korum,103–119.Vienna:Verlag derÖstereichischenAkademiederWissenchaften. ——.2001.Shangri-lainexile:RepresentationsofTibetanidentityand transnationalculture.InImaginingTibet,editedbyT.DodinandH. Rather,357–372.Boston:WisdomPublications. Kapstein,Matthew.2004.Athorninthedragon’sside:TibetanBuddhist cultureinChina.InGoverningChina’smultiethnicfrontiers,editedby M.Rossabi,230–269.Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress. Karlsson, Bengt G. 2003. Anthropology and the “indigenous slot”: Claims to and debates about indigenous peoples’ status in India. Critiqueofanthropology23(4):403–423. Kingsbury,Benedict.1998.“IndigenousPeoples”ininternationallaw: AconstructivistapproachtotheAsiancontroversy.AmericanJournal ofInternationalLaw92(3):414–457. Li,TaniaMurray.2000.ArticulatingindigenousidentityinIndonesia: Resourcepoliticsandthetribalslot.ComparativeStudiesinSocietyand History42(1):149–179. Litzinger,Ralph.2000.OtherChinas:TheYaoandthepoliticsofnational belonging.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress. ——.2004.Themobilizationofnature:Perspectivesfromnorthwest Yunnan.ChinaQuarterly178:488–504. Mackerras,Colin.1994.China’sminorities:Integrationandmodernization inthetwentiethcentury.HongKong:OxfordUniversityPress. Martínez,MiguelAlfonso.1999.Humanrightsofindigenouspeoples.Final Report,UnitedNationsEconomicandSocialCouncil,Commissionon HumanRights.Electronicdocument,http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/ Huridoca.nsf/0/696c51cf6f20b8bc802567c4003793ecOpendocument, accessedAugust8,2006. Maybury-Lewis,David.1997.Indigenouspeoples,ethnicgroups,andthe state.Boston:AllynandBacon.
TibetanIndigeneity:Translations,Resemblances,andUptake 97
Niezen,Ronald.2000.Recognizingindigenism:Canadianunityandthe internationalmovementofindigenouspeoples.ComparativeStudies inSocietyandHistory42(1):119–148. ——. 2003. The origins of indigenism: Human rights and the politics of identity.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Sautman, Barry. 2002. Resolving the Tibet Question: Problems and prospects.JournalofContemporaryChina11(30):77–107. Schein,Louisa.2000.Minorityrules:TheMiaoandthefeminineinChina’s culturalpolitics.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress. Smith,Warren.1996.Tibetannation:AhistoryofTibetannationalismand Sino-Tibetanrelations.Boulder,CO:WestviewPress. Sperling,Elliot.1994.Therhetoricofdissent:Tibetanpamphleteers. In Resistance and reform in Tibet, edited by R. Barnett, 267–284. Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress. TibetInformationNetwork(TIN).1996.Cuttingofftheserpent’shead: Tightening control in Tibet, 1994–1995. New York: Human Rights Watch–Asia. ——. 2004. Tibetan stories: Extracts from “Notes on Tibet.” May 4, 2004.ISSN:3313–3315.Electronicdocument,http://www.tibetinfo. net,accessedAugust1,2005. Tsing,Anna.2003.Agrarianallegoryandglobalfutures.InNaturein the global South: Environmental projects in South and Southeast Asia, editedbyP.GreenoughandA.Tsing,124–169.Durham,NC:Duke UniversityPress. Tuttle,Gray.2005.TibetanBuddhistsinthemakingofmodernChina.New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress. Wang,Lixong.2004.Tibetfacingimperialismoftwokinds:Ananalysis of the Woeser incident. Translated from Chinese edition, available on World Tibet News archives. Electronic document, http://www. asiademo.org,accessedDecember21,2004. Yeh,EmilyT.2003.TamingtheTibetanlandscape:Chinesedevelopment andthetransformationofagriculture.Ph.D.dissertation,Energyand ResourcesGroup,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.
This page intentionally left blank
t h r e e
“Our Struggle Has Just Begun”: Experiences of Belonging and Mapuche Formations of Self Claudia Briones
T
hevehiclesthatbroughtthepeoplefromEsquel,intheprovinceof Chubut,andfromBariloche,intheprovinceofRíoNegro,arrived togetherlateatnightinthesmalltownsituatedinthemiddleofthe Patagoniansteppe.Asthetravelersdescended,warmgreetingsforetold ofthejoytheywouldexperiencewhenreunitingwithotherMapuche brothersandsisterstheyhadmetatpreviousfvtaxawvn,orparliaments, aswellasgettingtoknowotherMapuchesforthefirsttime.Theaffection displayedineverychalitun(greetingritual)drewattentionjustasmuch asthedifferentdressesofthosewhometto“shakehands”ortogivea kissàlaMapuche,oneachcheek. Itmatteredverylittlethatsomedressedintheirbestbombacha,hat, andhandkerchiefasasignofruralorigin,andthatothersshowedoff jean jackets and hoods that left only a small part of a face piercing exposed,anarchist-punkmottos,andMapucheresistanceslogans.Some womenworetraditionalskirtsdespitethecoldthatbitattheirlegs, whileothersworepantsandjacketssocommonlyusedbythosewho livein“lospueblos.”However,whatmatteredmostwastoperformand enjoythegreetingetiquetteonarrival.Later,theywouldmeetupinthe schoolcafeteriarespectingeveryone’sturntosomehotfood.Therethey wouldcontinueconversingaboutthelatestnews,theirexpectations ofthemeetingthatwouldlasttwofullworkdays,andeachperson’s responsibilitiesatthisencounter.Atlasttheywouldpreparetowakeup earlyforthefirstpublicprayerbeforeformallyinitiatingtheparliament
99
100
Claudia Briones
that,forthefourthtime,wasbringingtogetherMapuche-Tehuelche communitiesandorganizationsofChubut,thehostingprovince,as wellasMapuchesfromneighboringprovinces.Asimilargatheringof peoplehadattendedpreviousparliamentsinVueltadelRío(April2003), inBuenosAiresChico(October2003),andinthePranecommunity (April2004),alllocatedinthenorthwestofChubut.Muchlikeprevious parliaments,thelastafternoonofthemeetingwouldbeopentowigka ornon-Mapuche(nonindigenous)contributorsandorganizationsthat wantedtoshow“theirsolidarityfortheMapuchestruggle”ortopropose somecollaborativeproject.Also,apublicannouncementwouldbemade todiscusstheencroachmentofminingcompaniesonMapuchelands andthelegalproceedingsthatMapuchesweretakingtocombatthis invasion.Perhapsthemostnovelaspectofthisfourthmeetingwasits locationintheChubuteanplateau.Thelocationfacilitatedtheaccessof peoplefromMapuchecommunitiesandvillagesplacednearbythezone whereValentínSayweke,thecaciquewhosesurrenderin1885signaled theendofthesocalledConquestoftheDesert,hadbeen“reserved.” In these types of gatherings, Mapuche identity crisis, its loss or strengthening in light of historic stigmatization by wigka or nonMapuche society, is one of the reoccurring topics of debate. But in thischapterIaminterestedinshowingthattheconceptofidentity, includingitspoliticization,isnomorethanthetipoftheicebergfor understanding much more complicated processes of individuation (Grossberg 1996) and communalization (Brow 1990) that diversify, andatthesametimeassemble,whatisunderstoodandfeltas“being Mapuchetoday.” In an earlier work (Briones 2006), I argued that distinct national formations of alterity promote differences in indigenous cultural productionsandorganizationalprocesses.IexploredhowthediversificationofMapuchedemandsinArgentinaisinfluencedbytheprovincial formationsofalteritythatarespecifictoeachoftheprovincialstates wheretheMapuchesarelocatedandhavehighlevelsofvisibilitytoday: mainly,Chubut,NeuquénandRíoNegro.1Inthischapter,Iexplore otherfactorsthatalsoinfluencethediverseproposalsandresponses that arise in Mapuche cultural politics. I examine what I observed andheardattheIVParliament,andinotherMapuchemeetings,to presentexamplesofdiversitywithintheMapuchecommunity,such asgender,age,schooling,politicalparticipation,andsoforth,andto identifyactivitiesandargumentsthatarosedespiteofandbecauseof thisdiversity.Becauseofquestionsofspace,Iwillfocusonpuwece, oryoungpeople’s,reflectionsandpositionalities.Forthisanalysis,I
ExperiencesofBelongingandMapucheFormationsofSelf 101
usesomespecificconceptstohelpunderstandwhatisitthatmakesa peoplethatclaimtobeinresistanceforoverfivecenturies,andfrom thisexperienceproclaimthat“theyarenotgoingtosubjectourwill,” toalsorecognizethat“ourstruggleasjustbegun.” IrefertotheconceptofMapucheformationsofselfasanalternative toindividuationintermsofsubjectivity,identity,andagency.These formations of self emerge from specific national and provincial formationsofalteritythatarebasedonregionalgeographiesofinclusion andexclusion.Theseregionalgeographiesdelineateaseriesofstructured mobilitiesforMapuchesthatfostertodifferentdegrees—ormayeven preclude—the opportunity and desire to come together despite of differences. ThepointherenotonlyisthatMapuchepeopleconstructdifferent mapsofmeaningtointerpretregionalgeographiesandmakesenseof theirstructuredmobilities.Thesecontestedmapsalsopromotedifferent strategicinstallationsandaffectiveinvestmentsofbelonging.Likewise, Iusetheideaofthepoliticaleconomyoftheproductionofcultural diversitytoanalyzethehegemonicconstructionsofaboriginalitythat arebothchallengedorreinscribedbyMapucheself-perceptionsandthe performancesthroughwhichcultureandpoliticsarebroughttogether in enactments that demand a more dignified spaces in the country wheretheylive.AfocusonMapucheformationsofselfwillallowme to explore emerging identities such as the punk Mapuches and the heavy metal Mapuches. I approach these identifications less as politicalidentitiesspreadbyglobalizingprocesses(Segato2002),thanas indicatorsandcontemporarymanifestationsofsomeofthehistorical trajectoriesavailabletoMapuchessincecolonization.
I. PersonalExperiencesofMapucheness Once they were ready to begin the parliamentary session in a large circleontheschool’scoveredpatio,oneoftheorganizer’srequested thateveryonepreparedbriefindividualpresentations.Thisroundof presentationslastedmuchlongerthananticipatedbecauseDonRuperto, whowasparticipatinginthistypeofparliamentforthefirsttime,felt obligatedtoplayhost.Beingthelogko,orcacique,ofthecommunity closesttowherethemeetingwasbeingheld,heassumedthatheneeded toproceedwithMapucheetiquetteandwelcometheparticipantsfrom other regions and provinces. Don Ruperto had arrived with a small groupofrepresentativesthatincludednotonlyhiswifeandotherelders, butalsotwoadolescentwomenthatheldthepositionofkallfvzomo,
102
Claudia Briones
or“holygirls,”inthecollectiveprayersoftheirMapuchecommunity. Becausetheylivedclosesttothemeeting,DonRupertoalsoassumed thatheshouldprovidethenecessaryinfrastructure,especiallyritual instruments,flags,containerstoprepareelmushaytosprinklewhile theyengagedinprayer,2forthegijipunthatinitiatedeachdayofthe parliament.3Onthisoccasion,theelders,whousuallyaccompanythe organizingcommitteeincarryingoutthegroup’srituals,sharedthe responsibilitywithDonRuperto.Duringcollectivedebates,thisgroup ofelderspositionedthemselvesas“traditionalauthorities.”Theyshared theirthoughtswitheveryonepresent,identifiedcommunityproblems, andtaughttheMapuchewaytoresolvecertainissues.Theyalsomediated disagreementsandgaveadvice,urgingpeopletopreservetheunityof “the Mapuche that we are” and to respect traditional practices and customs.Acentralconcernfortheeldersistheuseandrecuperation, accordingtothesituation,ofmapuzugun,orthetraditionalMapuche language.Bysharingpugvxam,ortruthstories,aboutsufferinginthe faceofmilitarycampaignsandthedispossessionofcollectiveland,the eldershistoricizedsituationsthatmanyparticipantspoliticized. Thehistoriesandexperiencesthattheparticipantssharedintroduced diverseperspectivesandwerenarratedfromdifferentsubjectpositions. Participantswhowereactiveinthehostingorganizationremindedthe groupthatthisandpreviousparliamentswerenotthepropertyofany oneorganization,butofallthosepresent.Theyalsoemphasizedthat notopicofdiscussionwasmoreimportantthananyotherbecausethey allaffectedtheMapuchepeople.And,thus,theconversationsstarted. Agroupofpeopleattendingtheparliamentforthefirsttime,showed interestinmeetingotherMapuchesinordertolearnhowtoorganize anurbancommunityintheneighboringlocalitieswheretheylived. Otherattendees—whohadbeenselectedascommunalrepresentatives oftheprovincialadministrationthusbecomingfunctionariesofthe non-Mapuchestateapparatus—explainedthattheycametogetherto learnabouttheproblemsoftheMapuchethattheyweresupposedto be representing. Some attended to report that their lands where an objectofminingprospectingandtosolicithelpinstoppingtheminers byforceifnecessary.Othersaskedfortheparliamenttointervenein landlitigationsthathadresultedfromdisagreementswithneighbors and family members. Several participants attended to solicit advice abouthowtodefendtheirlandsfromlocallandownersandproperty holders.Somerepresentativesspokeabouttheircommunity’sexperience resistingevictionandhowtheyhadrecuperatedlandthroughtheirown initiatives.Althoughanumberofwomenparticipatedinalltheactivities,
ExperiencesofBelongingandMapucheFormationsofSelf 103
butneverspokeinpublic,otherwomenlivelysharedhowtheybegan togetinvolvedintheMapuchestruggle.Forsome,itwasbecausethey hadalwaysbeenrebelsandneededtochanneltheirrebelliousness,and forothers,itwasbecauseofpersonalorfamilyinjusticesthathadmade themrealizetheimportanceofdefendingtheirorigins.Middleagemen alsopresentedcontrastedviews.Oneexplainedthattocommithimself tohispeoplehehadtodisobeyadvicegiventohimbytheelderswho encouragedhimtobepatientandnottorebelagainstinjustices.Other saidthathearrivedatthiscommitmentoncehewasabletounderstand themany“signs”sincebirththathadindicatedhehadreceivedthe newen,orspecialforce,thatmarksthosewhoshoulddedicatethemselves todefendingtheirpeople.Untilthen,hehadbeenunabletoreadthese signsamidstalifeplaguedbyjails,alcoholism,familyabandonment, andconversiontoEvangelicalcults.Itwasnotuntilheexperienced amoretruthfulandmilitantconversionthathewasabletoconfront injustices,discrimination,andinequality. However,itwastheyoungpeoplethatarrivedfromBariloche,(acity intheneighboringprovinceofRíoNegrowellknownforitstourist attractions)whoconsistentlysolicitedtheopinionsoftheelders.Selfdefinedas“IndependentandAutonomous,”manyoftheseadolescents wereparticipatingintheparliamentforthefirsttime.Thetwoyoung menresponsibleforsupervisingthemhadattendedpreviousgatherings andwererecognizedasformingpartof“themovement”mapunky(punk Mapuches)andmapuheavy(heavymetalMapuches).Membersofthese movementsclaimthattheygivethemalanguagethroughwhichto discussrebellion,includingtheconstantuseoftheletter“k”inplace of “c” in names, poems, and messages. For example, Fakundo and Oskarsaythattobeayoungurbanindigenouspersonincludesafusion ofexperiencesandrealitiesthatthejointwordsmapu-heavyandmapunkyhelptoexpress.Ateighteen,itdoesnotmattertoFakundothat manypeoplesaywhattheydeclarecomesfromforeigntrendsorcan beattributedtothefactthat“theyareatarebelliousage.”Heexplains that: Obviously, we are rebels, we are rebels against a system, we are rebels againstaformoflifethatourparentswereforcedtolive...wefeelthis reflected in the punk attitude. In the city what other option do you have? ... the issue is that today Mapuches are in the neighborhoods, today we are the piqueteros, the delinquents ... the mayor’s office is fullofMapuche.Andthismakesyoumadbecausewhenitsuitsthem theyagreethatweexistandwhenitsuitsthemwearetheworsttrash
104
Claudia Briones
...anarkopunkhelpedmetothinkthroughsomethingssuchashow societyisrun,andfromtheretogettoknowaboutanarchism....Over anythingelseIamMapuche,butinthecityItakethesetools...thatis whathelpsyouwhenyouareinthecity.(Scandizzo2004c)
In his early twenties, Oskar runs a program at a community radio in Bariloche that he defines as “underground, intercultural and emancipatory.”HeagreeswithFakundothat“gettingtoknowpunk and heavy helped me a lot to channel my rebellion.” However, he recognizesthat: ManyMapuchesrejectus,theydiscriminateagainstusortheyleaveus outbecauseofthewaythatweare,becausewethinkthisway,because wedressthisway...buttodayweareanotherformofexpressionofour people....Mapuchedidnotfreezeintimeandifeveryonerealizesthis, manyotherpeopleintheneighborhoodswouldalsorecognizeitasa Mapuchewayofbeing.(Cañuqueo2003)
MapunkiesandmapuheaviestakeupmetaphorsfromthepoetDavid Añiñir,aself-definedasmapurbe(urbanMapuche),tomakesenseof theirbelongingasfusion.Iwouldhowevercontendthatthenotion offrictionismoreeffectivetohelpusunderstandhowtheirprocesses ofself-identificationbothquestionspacesofidentityfromtheoutside anddestabilizethespacesthattheyprovisionallyoccupywithinthe Mapuchecommunity(cf.Tsing2005). Currently, their positionalities create friction with what they call “the system,” a set of hegemonic values, practices of social control andeffectsofthepoliticaleconomythatplacetheminmarginalized neighborhoods and in the margins of society, too close to political repressionandtoofarawayfromtheupperclassyoungpeoplewith jobs,dignifiedhousing,schoolingandpredictablefutures.Buttheyalso createfrictionwithotheryouthlikethemselveswhohaveassumedthe stigmaoftheirpovertyandgiventhemselvesuptodistinctaddictions, suchasgangcrime,prematurefatherhood,ordomesticviolence.They viewtheseyouthasfailingtorecognizetheirMapucheoriginsinthecity. Furthermore,theycreatefrictionwiththeMapuchenessoftheirparents from whom they distance themselves because of the passivity that theyhaveseemedtodemonstrateinthefaceofinjustices.Theseyouth criticizeearliergenerationsforacceptingtheirinvisibilityasMapuches whentheyarrivedintownstoseekworkafterbeingdispossessedoftheir landsbyprivatecapitalandthestateitself.Finally,theyplacethemselves
ExperiencesofBelongingandMapucheFormationsofSelf 105
infrictionwiththeideathatMapuchenessiscentrallylinkedtothe countryside and rural life, and with cultural activists that vindicate themselves as “strugglers,” while they let themselves be seduced by wigkaornonindigenouspolitics,the“oldpolitics”astheycallit,andend upconcentratingtheirdemandsonservicesfromthestate,accepting multilateralfinancingfortheirprojects,ortravelingaroundtheworld as “grassroots representatives” of communities from which they are evermoredistant.Mapunkiesandmapuheaviesdonotonlyposition themselvesagainstpower.Theirbodilyaestheticalsocreatesfriction withdominantMapuchediscourses,resonatingfrombothadultsand otheryoungpeople,whoclaimthatthemapunkiesandmapuheavies donotrepresentindigenousidentity. Some of the youth that were born and continue to live in rural communities, but have been obligated or desired to leave them in searchofwagelabor,donotnecessarilyvocalizetheirsenseofbelonging centrally in terms of being Mapuche. Despite the fact that some of theseyoungpeopledoaccompanyadultsincommunityactivities,the elderly tend to view them as emblematic of the next disappearance of cultural ancestry. The elders fear their abandonment of the use oftraditionallanguage,thegradualtransformationofpractices,and the decrease in respect owed to “los mayores.” It is interesting that thesesameelders,whorememberthatwhentheywereyoungandleft thecommunitytofindwork,they“behavedkindofwildly,”4dono maketheassociationthattoday’syoutharepassingthroughasimilar experienceofmomentarydistancingfromcommunitythatcouldbe reversedinthefuturemuchlikewhatoccurredintheircase. However, for young people that live in rural settings and involve themselvesincommunityproblems,thedefenseofwhatitmeansto beMapucheprimarilyrestsonstrugglingagainstthedispossessionof landthatbeganwiththeconsolidationoflargelandholdingestates. AsMarceloexplained: WeareindigenousMapuchecommunitiesandwehavetomakethem respectus....Andifwedon’tmakethemrespectus,theywalkallover us. ... The only solution that we have is that we have to struggle as Mapuches. And if we have to give our blood for our territory, we are goingtodoso.IamtwentyyearsoldandIwasborninthiscommunity (VueltadelRío),andiftheywanttotakemeawaytheyaregoingtohave totakemedead.Becauseweareallwillinginthiscommunity.SoIam verymuchinagreementwithwhattheysaid,thatweasanindigenous peoplehavetomakethemrespectus,wearegoingtogetrecognizedand
106
Claudia Briones
inthiswaywearegoingtowinthefightforourterritories.Thelittlethat isleftafterthelandownerstookitawayfromourgreat-grandfathers.In 1940,theelders,thepeoplehad700sheep.Todaythemostthatpeople haveis100animals.That’swhat’sleft.Nowwehavetostandupand fighttowinourterritory.(EquipoMapurbe2003)
TheimportancethatMarceloandmanycommunitiesplaceonstruggling to maintain or to recuperate their land is also upheld by groups of urbanyoungpeople,orpuwarriache.However,thedifferencebetween these groups revolves around two issues: First, if urban youth will begintoappropriatetheseagendassothattheiractivismisexclusively demarcatedbyitssupportforthestrugglesofdistinctcommunities,as hasrecentlybeenthecasewithyouthintheCentroMapucheBariloche, oriftheywillseektocomplementthissupportwithotheractivities that are more centered on urban problems. Secondly, if the notion of “Mapuche culture” will be restricted to traditional practices that wouldhavetoberelearned,orifitwillbeexpandedtoincorporate thediverselifetrajectoriesthathaveoccurredasMapuchesrelocated tocities.Thislastideaisonethatmapurbesexplore.Mapurbessituate themselves close to the mapunkies and mapuheavies by questioning discoursesthatclaimthat“thefaceofkultrún”(Mapuchedrumritual) orruralnessdefinesMapuchebelonging,andthatbeingbornorliving in towns transforms Mapuche into Wigka. However, mapurbes also distancethemselvesfrommapunkiesandmapuheaviesbyrecognizing morediverseinfluencesontheiridentityconstructionsthananarcopunkandheavymovements.Theyproposelessofafusedidentityand moreofanotionofthe“mapuchization”ofplaces,technologies,and artisticexpressions.Lorena,astudentofcommunicationscienceand amemberoftheMapucheCommunicationWorkingGroupthatedits thefanzineMapurbe,admitsthatoneofthemostfrequenterrorsof urbanMapucheyouthisanattempt“toreturntotheirroots”without questioningstereotypesandwithoutitbeingMapuchesthemselveswho discuss“seriouslywhatisitthatwewanttodo.”Whendiscussingclaims about the impossibility of being both urban and Mapuche, Lorena explains: EventhoughyouarelivingintheneighborhoodVillaObreraofFiske Menuko(GeneralRoca)city,youareMapuche,youhaveyouridentity andanimmediateorigininthatplace.Youhaveyourrootsthere.This bringsforthalotofissues,yourparentsdidnotcomeherebecausethey arepeoplewhosimplycrosstheirarmsanddonothing,becausethey
ExperiencesofBelongingandMapucheFormationsofSelf 107
haveneverdoneanythingtofight....Whathappenswiththemajority ofyoungpeopleisthattheyrenouncetheirfamilies,theirorigins,their roots, they break with their history. ... What we intend to do is to usesomebasiccodes,awaytounderstandourselvesasyoungpeople, being in the city and having a ton of other characteristics in every neighborhood,ineveryMapuche...thoseofusthatareproposingthese thingsfromthecitiesdidn’tknoweachother...inwhatwouldhave beennaturalMapuchesettings:notinorganizations,notinkamarikun (collectiverituals)notfromanythinglikethis;wemetuponthecorners, game rooms or in concerts. ... The majority take it: “You can not be Mapucheandwalkaroundwithapunkhairdoandhikingboots,”“You can’tbeMapucheandwalkaroundwithyourjacketfullofshinythings, patches.”It’sasifsomethingdoesn’tmakesense,butwereturntothe themeofwhatispurelyMapuche.ThisisMapuche,andthisisnot.I knowthatitcanbedifficultformanyofourpeople,especiallytheolder ones, it can even produce shock. But I also understand that one can notproposeaseriousreconstructionasapeopleiftheydonottakea momenttominimallyreflectonhowweendedupafterthemessthat resultedfromtheinvasionsbytheChileanandArgentinestates....I’m not saying that it’s going to be massive, but something that little by littlewillseepintotheseplaces,inthedifferentgroupsinthecitythat formspacesofresistance.Andonebeginstofillthesespaceswiththe Mapuche identities even though they were originally created or were madebyothertypesofidentity...likealamuen(sister)says,youcan mapuchizar these spaces (make them Mapuche) and not always live awinkándote(movingforwardtobeingnon-Mapuche,whiteningyou).” (Scandizzo2004a)
And yet other youth activists, such as the organizers of the Coordinating Organization of the Neuquén Mapuches (COM), question the mapunky and mapuheavy ideas of “fusion” and the mapurbes ideas of “mapuchization.” Speaking at length about the objectives of the newspaper they publish, Tayiñ Rakizuam (our thoughts), AmankayÑancucheo,a19-year-oldwomanwhoisoneofitseditors, explained: Besidesinformingandexplainingpoliticalissues,wealsowanttoreveal ourculture,ourphilosophy.Weseektopresentwhatistheessenceofour people,theirorigins,theirtraditions,becausetherearemanybrothers andsistersinthecityandinthecountryside,manykidslikeus,who don’tknoweachother,thatdon’thavethistypeofinformation,about
108
Claudia Briones
theirtuwun(placeofspiritualorigin),theirkupalme(principalaffiliation withtheirancestry).(PedroCayuqueo2004)
Umawtufe,directorofthenewspaper,explainshowtheseotheryoung peopleidentifythemselvesasthepukonaoftheCOM: We believe that in the twenty-first century, the young people must reassumethisroleandwedothisthroughthepress,theradio,photography, which are non-Mapuche tools, western, but they help us to denounce what is happening in our communities and also, of course, tostrengthenourphilosophicalandculturalideas.Ithinkthatwecan notspeakaboutpoliticswithoutrecognizingtheMapuchephilosophy, ourcosmicvision,whichforusgoeshandinhand.Thisisourobjective. (PedroCayuqueo2004)
As children of the founders and present leaders of the COM, an organizationcreatedinthe1990stoclaimfortherecognitionofMapuche territoryandself-determination(Briones1999),theseadolescentshave been brought up in cities, but in a militant Mapuche environment. Theyshareperspectiveswiththeirparents,buttheseperspectivesmay bedifferentfromthoseofotheryoungpeople.Forexample,forsome youth, the cultural battle against the dispossession of land implies, above all else, a respect for Mapuche ways that avoids (con)fusions. Pagi, a 20 year old, states: “We have an identity, we listen to heavy andpunkeveryday,butthisdoesnotmakeusmapuchepunk.Ithink thataMapuchedoesnothavetobeknownaspunkorheavybecause youarelosingyourvalues,yourprincipals,youridentity.Youarenot recognizingyouridentity”(Scandizzo2004b). AmancayagreeswithPagiinthat,“Youcannotbetwothingsatthe sametime.Youcannotbeanambiguousthing.Youhavetobeone thingatatime,andbeyondthat,ifyouconsideryourselfMapuche, youhaveawholeculture,alanguage.”Inregardstowhattraditional Mapuchecultureoffers,Pagiemphasizesthatitevenoffers:“Yourown music....Instruments.Youhaveeverything,itisnotnecessarytoseek outanotherculturetosupposedlyfulfillwhatyouaremissingouton” (Scandizzo2004b). Atthispointintheinterview,Pagi’smothers,aknownleaderofthe COM,intervenes: JustasPagisays,youareArgentineoryouareMapuche;youarepunk oryouareMapuche.Wedonotwantamixofcultures,wewanttobe
ExperiencesofBelongingandMapucheFormationsofSelf 109
onlyone.Now,MapuchescanopttobepunkandMapucheatthesame time,Argentineandeverythingelse,buttheyhaveaninfinitenumber ofidentitiesandneitherofthesethingsidentifythemfirmly.It’salittle ofeachthing,andwedonotwantalittleofeachthing,wewanttobe whatweare.Wedonotneedalittlebitofpunktomakeusfeelbetter. Wewouldbreakwithouridentity,withourcharacteristicsasMapuche, bybeingpunk.(Scandizzo2004b)
TheexamplesthatIhavediscussedabovedonotevenexhaustall thepositionalitiesassumedbyyoungMapuches.Forexample,atthe parliament,aproposalwasmadeinfavorofalawthatwouldstandardize theteachingofmapuzuguninalltheprovincialschools.Theyasked: WhydopublicschoolsteachEnglishandrefusetoteachthelanguages of the original peoples? In urban contexts, demands usually center around politics to rescue lost or denied cultural elements. However, thisproposalbroughtgenerationaltensions. Until this moment, the youth of Bariloche and the young adult organizersofthemeetinghadbeeninagreementaboutallthemotions proposed.Theyagreedoncondemningtherepressionofyouthprotests in Bariloche and to continue requesting the removal of the Julio Argentino Roca monument from the Civic Center of the city. They agreed on supporting the recovery of land and of opposing mining projects.However,whendebatetouchedonmakingchangestopublic education,sidesdivided.Theorganizersofpreviousparliamentsargued againstit.TheycouldnotentrustimportantMapuchematterstothe publicschoolsystemwithoutfirstmakingsubstantialtransformations totheeducationalsystem.Withoutthisfirst,itwouldbeimpossible toavoidthecontinuedpromotionofawigkaeducationthatwouldat mostendupincorporatingrandomMapuchewordsintotheprogram ofstudyratherthananysubstantialMapuchethought.Althoughthe young people agreed with this, they repeatedly asked the elders to takeaclearpositionontheissue.Atthispointthecoordinatorofthe discussiontriedtoeasethetensioninsistingthattheeldersneededmore timetorespondtosuchcomplicatedmatters.Atthispoint,whenthe issuewastheextenttowhichMapuchetraditionalknowledgecould provideanswersforeverythingorwhethertherewerequestionsthat couldbesolvedfromotherculturalperspectives,anelderaskedforthe floorandnegotiatedbetweenthetwogenerations: Iamgoingtospeakalittle.Asthepeñi(brother)says,wedonotunderstandthecomplicationsofthelaws.ButItellthebrothersandsistersto
110
Claudia Briones
taketheirchildrentotheprayersessionsoftheirelderssothattheylearn andmotivatethemselves.Theschoolisnotenoughbecausethewhite compañeroslaughatthemandthishinderseverything(allthathadbeen advancedinstrengtheningself-esteem)atschool.
This example shows that we can not assume the automatic existenceofcoincidencesamongMapucheeveniftheysharegeneration, gender,placeofreference,politicalcommitment,orschooling.Surprisinganddespitethefactthatthemapunkyandmapuheavyaesthetic appears to be the most at odds with the rural communities (upheld as the epitome of Mapucheness) elders often demonstrate public affection toward mapunkies and mapuheavies and encourage them showingthemaffectionthroughgesturesandwordsinmoreintimate conversations.
II. MakingSenseofDiversity My examples do not exhaust the lived experiences of mapucheness or the political positionalities of Mapuche communities and their organizations.5However,thesecontextsillustrateaseriesoffragmented experiencesthatcommonsensemightidentifyasaweaknessforthe empowermentofthe“MapuchePeople-Nation.”Elsewhere,Iarguethat todaytheforceoftheMapuchemovementinArgentinaresidesprecisely inthedisagreementsthathavebeengeneratedafter20yearsofsustained struggle. The more these disagreements stimulate diverse positions, themoredynamicthemovementbecomes.Thus,itopensadiversity ofoptionsforMapuchesubjectivities(Brioneset.al2004).Differences amongMapuchesarenotanecdotalorobstaclestotheproductionof collectivepolitics.Ianalyzethemasdifferentialformationsofselfmade possiblebythedominantnationalandprovincialformationsofalterity. TheseformationsproducedanimageofawhiteArgentiniansociety that, on the one hand, excluded Indians, blacks and peasants from nationalparticipation,and,ontheotherhand,producedclassificatory categories to discriminate and stigmatize them as “internal others” subject to biopolicies that regulated their differentiated existence (Briones2002b). Notanexclusiveproductofthestate,theseformationsofalterityhave predominantlydependedonshiftinghistoricalgeographiesofinclusion andexclusion(Briones2005).Tomakesenseofthesegeographies,Iuse LawrenceGrossberg’sconceptualizationof“identity”asaconsequence oftheactionofaseriesofstratifying,differentiatingandterritorializing
ExperiencesofBelongingandMapucheFormationsofSelf 111
machines(1992,1993,1996)thatspatializedifferencesand,thus,define individual’spositionsinthesocioeconomicstructureofthecountry. Iwillusemyreflectionsonmapunkies,mapuheavies,andmapurbesto illustratesomeaspectsofhowthesemachinesoperate.6 As Grossberg indicates, the stratifying machines provide access to certaintypesofexperiences,andknowledgeabouttheworldandabout oneself.Theythusmakesubjectivityanunequallydistributeduniversal value.Experiencesoftheworldareproducedfromparticularpositions that,althoughtemporary,determineaccesstoknowledgeandbring about attachments to places that individuals call “home” and from whichtheyspeak.InthecasethatIanalyze,thesemachineshavecreated positionsofsubalternityandalteritythat,asFakundoexplains,force MapuchestoliveinpoorneighborhoodsinPatagoniancities,suffering hungerandcold.AsMapuchesthemselvesrecognize,economicand culturalstigmatizationshaveledandcontinuetoleadmanyMapuches tosilenceaspectsoftheiridentity,andavoidcommentsagainsttheir “kultrunface,”theirilliteracyorpoverty.Yetthesamecircumstances havealsoledotherMapuchestorebelagainstthesestereotypes.Some suchasthepukonaofCOM,tendtochannelthisrebellionintheform ofpoliticalconfrontationbyreaffirmingtraditionalMapuchevaluesand practices.Forthosethatdidnotmeetthoughpracticalorganizations thepathwasmorearduous,asLorenaexplains: Okaypal,butattheendofthedayweareinthis,wearefeelingthis desperation,withthisdoubtbecause...isitourheritage?What’sgoing on?Andlittlebylittle...youcametorealizethatitwasallaprocess,you aresomeonethathademergedoutofatonofthingsthathappenedto yourfamily.Youbegintorealizethatyourparentsaren’tshitheads:“Ifit happenedtosomeonehereandtosomeoneinthatneighborhoodalso. ...What’shappeninghere?”Youstarttoquestionabunchofthingsand yousay:“Itdidn’tjustbeginnowsincewestartedtogettogetherhere, itbeganalongtimeago.”Thenyouvindicatethosestoriesofresistance thattheycontinuouslyhidefromus(ourownfamiliesaswellasofficial history).(Scandizzo2004a)
According to Grossberg, the second group of machines are differentiatingmachines.Thesearelinkedtotruthregimesresponsiblefor the production of differentiated identity systems that condition the potential alliances among different people. In Argentina, ethnicized and racialized collectives, (“indigenous,” “African,” “immigrants,” “creoles”and“blackheads”)arehierarchicallyorderedandsegregated
112
Claudia Briones
withinanationalbiomoralsystem(Briones2004).Thissystemrestson apoliticaleconomyofproductionofculturaldiversitythatreproduces internal inequalities by rendering invisible certain differences while also insidiously ordering others. Within this political economy, the aboriginality (Beckett 1988; Briones 1998) of some individuals not onlyimpedestheircitizenship,butalsoblemishestheself-proclaimed “Eurocentered” profile of the nation. In the particular case of the Mapuches,stigmatizedconstructionsofaboriginalitywerenotmeant toleadtotheextremetropesofsavageryandprimitivismthatbefell otheroriginalpeoplesinthecountry.However,itsoughttodisqualify Mapuchesfromcitizenshipusingaccusationsthattheywere“belligerent invasiveforeigners,”eternallyChileanandresponsiblefortheextinction ofthetehuelchepeople,theallegedoriginal“Argentines”fromPatagonia. Also,narrowconstructionsofaboriginalityproduceafixedMapuche identitylinkedtothecountrysideandalifestylededicatedtobreeding goats and sheep. These beliefs which confine Mapuches to the past delegitimizetheirpresentsenseofbelongingandtheircurrentstruggle for their rights as citizens and Mapuches. Additionally, as Fakundo pointsout,beingMapuchebecomesfolkloreandthe“embarrassment oftouristicBariloche,”andasLorenaadds,naturalizesanideaofthe “Indian”assomeonewhopermanentlybowstheirhead,islazy,afailure oradrunk,neighborsandstrangersbeingconvincedthatsocialmobility or urbanization is unusual for Mapuches and therefore dilutes their aboriginality. Lastly,territorializingmachinesarethefruitofunequalstructures ofaccessanddistributiontoculturalandeconomiccapital(Grossberg 1992: 106 ff.). They condition structured mobilities that determine whattypesofplaceseachpersoncanoccupy,howtheyoccupythem, howmuchspacetheyhavetomovearound,andhowtheycanmove throughtheseplaces.Thesemobilitiesalsoprovokedifferentialaccess to resources affecting an individual’s capacity to articulate pleasures anddesiresandtheirabilitytofightforpolitical,culturalandeconomic redistributionandspatialreorganization.WhenLorenaspeaksaboutthe placeswhereyoungMapuchesencountereachotherandthestrategies thatemergetofightforadignifiedidentityshediscloses: First you disguise yourself even in those places that are supposedly yourplaces,whereyoucantalksincerely.YouaretheMecha,theGula, names that disguise your belonging. “But what’s your last name?”— I’m Ñancucheo.—I’m Cañuqueo. You begin to engage in a whole chain narrating your life. “What happened is that my old man came
ExperiencesofBelongingandMapucheFormationsofSelf 113
here...—Whydidyouroldmancomehere?—“Becausethemilitaryran himoff”;or“Therewasaneedtobuildaruralschoolintheprovince andtheythrewhimout”;or“TheTurkishtraderarrivedandstolethe land.”Andbytheendyourealizeawholebunchofcoincidencesand... youridentity,thatwasinitiallyapunk,enlargesquiteabit.(Scandizzo 2004a)
Mapuche geographies have shifted considerably since early in the 19th century because of birth of private expropriations of land and toofficialstateactions,suchasthemilitaryoccupationofPatagonia (gearedtosymbolicallyincorporatethesouthernportionofthecountry intothenation).Forcedlabormigrationshavealsocontributedtothe geographicmobilityofMapuches.Thesemigrationsresultedindiverse landtenureregimesfromtheadjudicationoflandinreservations,or in communal agricultural and pastoral properties (Briones y Delrio 2002).AttheendofanytheseprocessesMapuchefamilieswerelandless rural dwellers, forced to migrate to other rural areas of to the cities in search of a livelihood (Olivera and Briones 1987). Thus, despite hegemonicconstructionsofaboriginalitythatproclaimtheinevitable deindianizationofMapuchesinurbanenvironments,thelastnational census(2001)showedthattodaythemajorityoftheself-proclaimed MapucheinArgentinaliveindifferentcities,preciselywheretheirsense ofbelongingismoresystematicallyquestionedanddenied. Giventhisgeneralsituation,suspicionsareparticularlyintenseabout theauthenticityofmapunkiesandmapuheavies,aswellasindigenous intellectuals whose schooling and political capacity distances them from the image of the “true indígena” (rural, passive, incompetent, submissive,andeasilysatisfiedbybasicaidpolicies).Whileremaining incommunitiesorruralareashasbeenahistoricalobstacleforMapuche schooling and social mobility, migration to urban centers has made thesethingspossibleinalimitedway.Thus,asignificantprofessional developmentofindigenouscitizensisstillfaroff.Moreover,whenthis professionalizationdoesoccur,thesocialpressuresinurbanareasare sostrongthatmanypeoplerendertheiroriginsinvisible.Although, thisprocesshasbeguntoreverseitself(andLorenaisjustoneexample ofyoungactivistsfromhumblefamiliesthathavestruggledtostudy at the university level), it is exactly in these situations that greater questionsandmorestringentrequirementsariseregardingindigenous authenticity,legitimacyandrepresentation. Insum,thebasicpanoramathatIhavelaidoutshouldhelpusunderstand(1)whyLorenaattributesdistinctMapucheurbantrajectoriesto
114
Claudia Briones
thehistoriceffectsoflanddispossession;(2)whyMapuchesarecurrently locatedinthemostprecariousneighborhoodsinArgentinetownsand citiesand;(3)whyMapucheparliamentsreflectsuchvarieddemands; and(4)whytherecognitionofurbanaboriginalityissovividlyasserted anddemandedbysomeMapuches.
III. ConvergencesthroughDifference, DifferentiationsthroughConvergences TheMapuchestrugglehasgainedconsiderableforceandpoliticalvisibilityinthelast20years.Toexplainthisachievementinacountrythat hastriedtomakeinvisibleandmuteitsdiversityinsuchaconsistent way, we have to pay attention to how the proposals of the “pueblo naciónMapuche”defystigmatizationsandmakepossibleconvergences despiteofandthroughdifferences.Inearlierworks,Ihaveanalyzedthe waysinwhichMapucheshavebroughttogethercultureandpoliticsto stagetheirunitybeforenon-Mapuchesociety(Briones1999and2003). HereitinterestsmetopointoutsomeofthepracticesthatMapuches engageintorecreatethissenseofunitydespitedifferencesfromand forMapuchesthemselves. Inencounterssuchastheparliaments,Mapuchesmobilizecognitive and affective patterns of communalization. They recreate a sense of belongingtogether(Brow1990)inandthroughpracticesthatareseen asrecurringandbroadlysharedbyMapuchesfromdiversetimeperiods andplacesoforigin,nomatterhowinnovativethesepracticesare.The greeting,welcomingandfarewellrituals,sharingfoodandhousing,or thereaffirmationthattakesplaceinpublicprayer,stimulatenowadays, astheydidbefore,asustainedandaffectiveinvestmentindisplayinga publicfeelingofbeingMapuche.However,noteverybodyneedstodo orknoweverything.Attheparliamentwhilesomeofthemostactive participants in the discussions did not engage in the public prayer, others,particularlysomelocalpeople,arrivedearlytojoinothersin theorations,butleftassoonasdebatesbegan. Fromthebeginningoftheparliament,itbecameclearthatdifferent experiences not only produce distinct needs and interests, but they alsoproducedistinctstylesofconfrontationandconsensusbuilding. Convergences thus emerge not necessarily from shared problems, butratherfromtheperformativepotentialthatspeakingabout“the struggle,”(lalucha)andprojectingacommonpresentandfuturecan provide.Thisalsonourishesasharedsenseofbecomingthroughidentification with a history of injustice and stories of dispossession and
ExperiencesofBelongingandMapucheFormationsofSelf 115
suffering.Moreover,givingtestimonytothedistinctcircumstancesthat obligateeachandeverypersontodefendthemselvesfromsomeform ofsubjugation,notonlycreatesabasisforacommonconversation,but alsoarticulatesstrategicinstallationsthathelptotransform“common people”withdisparatelifetrajectoriesandstructuredmobilitiesinto “strugglers.” After the Third Parliament, Rosa Rúa Nahuelquir, who alongwithherhusband,AtilioCuriñanco,becamefamoushavingbeen takentopublictrialbytheItaliancorporation,Benetton(Brionesand Ramos2005),explains: Inthebeginningthey(therepresentativesofBenetton)toldustosign and give up the place. We said no because this place belonged to us. Wearechildrenoftheland,andwewanttobeheretotrytogetahead, progress,andsustainourselves.Sowesaidno.Thestruggleisnotgoing tobesoeasy.Whenourancestorslived,theyranthemoffwhenthey wanted,buttodaywearegoingtostandupandfight.IthinkthatAtilio alsofeelsthisway,heisnotgoingtogiveup....Ifeelstronger(afterthis Parliament).AtnotimedidIfeelweaktokeepupwiththestruggleeven thoughIhadnotdoneitbefore....Iknowthatsomeofmybrothers andsistersaregoingtoaccompanymetoseeifthecourtsrecognizeour rightsonceandforall....IneverthoughtthatIwouldbeinvolvedin this.Witheverythingthathashappenedtous,I(realizedthat)haveto defendmyidentity.(Moyano2004)
Nowthen,ifspeakingaboutthestruggleandthe“morethanfive centuriesofresistance”createsnowadaysacommonground,itisparadoxicalthatitalsoreinforcestheideathat“ourstrugglehasjustbegun.” Asaresult,middleagedpeoplelikeRosaandAtiliofeelthatmuchis yettocome.AsRosaexplains,thisissobecause“theyranourancestors offwhenevertheywanted.”AndAtiliolamentsthefaintheartedness of the ancestors that permitted them to do so. He remembers: “my deceasedfathersaid,‘Letitbe,son.Don’tmakeproblems,’andthings kepthappening.” Youngpeoplealsoexplainthattheinitialchannelingoftheiruncontrollable rebellion against the system and older generations of Mapuchesledthemtobegintoengageindiversebattles,notofthem anchoredinaMapucheidentification.Intimemanyofthemrealized that, despite appearances, these battles were a response, although a mediated one, to urban trajectories that have led a large number of Mapuches to live in the poor neighborhoods of distinct towns and cities.Theyarealsoaresultofthestructuralconditionsthatmakeit
116
Claudia Briones
hardforthemtofindwork,getschooling,andescapeaddictionsand politicalpersecution. Asshownbythereflectivetestimoniesweshared,theseconditions canbemoreeasilygraspedordenouncedthanchangedorovercome. Vying to make them visible, mapunkies and mapuheavies articulate theirstrugglesbyexploringidentifications(age,gender,class,ethnic background, and region) in fusion–friction with distinct places of attachmentthatrenderapparenttheinjusticesandinequalitiesthat eachoftheseplacesareassociatedwith.Themapurbesprimarilyintend to“Mapuchecize”thedistinctcontextsinwhichtheylivetocounteract notionsofuprootedness,andavoidrenouncingtocurrentMapuche diversitythattheyseeasaresultofWigkasupremacy.Curiously,younger groupsareaffectionatewiththegenerationofeldersthatRosaandAtilio holdresponsiblefortheirownidentitycrisisandtheirlatedisobedience. YetyoungMapuchesnotonlydisapproveoftheirsubmissiveparents, butalsocriticizebranchesofMapucheculturalactivismthat,sincethe 1980s,havefoughtagainstthehegemonicinvisibilizationofindigenous peoples.Whileperhapsnotgivingsufficientcredittotheseactivists, today in their forties, for the achievements that resulted from their tenaciouscrusadeindefenseofthepueblo,autonomyandterritory, mapunkies,mapuheavies,andmapurbesunderstandthattheMapuche identity that most organizations promote is so one-sided that has becomeanironcage.Theyalsoclaimthatmuchoftheorganizations’ cultural politics amounts to, or favors Wigka realpolitik rather than expressingMapucheviewsonthepolitical.Therefore,thisMapuche youthalsoseemstofeelthattheirstrugglehasjustbegun. Itisnoteasytoexplainthisconvergent,butselectiveassumption ofresponsibilitythatleadsbothmatureandyoungMapuchealiketo feeldisappointedbytheirparents’generation.Itisalsocuriousthat theperformativepotentialofspeakingabout“thestruggle”doesnot suffice to neutralize such an assumption either, even more so when onerealizesthatanyparents’generationformspartofthecommonly acceptedbeliefin“morethanfivecenturiesofresistance.”Perhapsat thispointweshouldthinkcriticallyabouttheunintendedconsequences andside-effectsoftheaffectiveinvestmentsthatallowtheconversion ofcategoriesofoppressionintocategoriesofemancipation. Themoretheseinvestmentsarebasedonselfdemandingstandards ofachievement,themoretheyseemtofosterexpectationsthat“the struggle”shouldeffectdefinitiveresults.Emancipatorystruggles(always open-ended,especiallywhenthoughtofinthepluralform)thatare overallconceivedaspartofa“warofposition”—tobeconductedacross
ExperiencesofBelongingandMapucheFormationsofSelf 117
many different and varying fronts of struggle (Hall 1986: 17)—start beingjudgedandfeltaspartofa“warofmanoeuvre,”condensedinto onefrontandonemomentofstruggletoobtainastrategicvictory.The impactofmovesthatchallengedculturalhegemoniesandforcedthem tobecomemorerefinedtendstobeoverlooked,thuscreatingasense of failure or insufficiency. In addition, the more strength needed to challengethestructuredmobilitiesthatseemavailabletous,themore discreditedtheeffortsofthosefromwhomweinheritedthestruggles seemtoappear,thusleadingustofeelthat“ourstrugglehasjustbegun.” This in turn seems to provoke further attachment to a distant past, thepastofthegrandparentsandthekujfikeceorancestors,whocan beidealizedasburstingwithmorecertaintiesanddirectionthanthe parent generation, and as an untainted incarnation of the “more of fivecenturiesofresistance.”Inanyevent,whattendstogounnoticed isthattheemergenceof(one’sown)moreexpansiveconceptionsof “autonomy”or“politics”thatrecreatesdifferencesamonggenerations, andevenwithineachgeneration,feedsonbothinheritedwisdomsand inheriteddisappointments.
Notes 1. This is the investigative line of Grupo de Estudios en Aboriginalidad, Provincias y Nación (GEAPRONA) and has also been explored by other membersoftheteam(Cañuqueoetal.2005;Falaschietal.2005;GEAPRONA 2001;Mombello2005,RamosandDelrio2005). 2. Mushayischicha. 3. Gijipuniscollectiveprayer. 4. Inthesensethattheydidnotunderstandorforgottheadviceoftheir grandparents. 5. SolelywithinthefieldoforganizationswithMapuchephilosophyand leadership, the use of key concepts such as the right to a territory, to selfdetermination and to the management of natural resources is widespread. However,differentstylesofconfrontationandstrategicinstallationsaretried nowadays.Asaresult,differencesbecomeapparentaroundthewaysinwhich theyaddressthenonindigenouscivilsociety,theextenttowhichtheyaccept orrejecttogetinvolvedwithstateagencies,andagreetomultilateralfunding fortheirundertakings.MostofthetestimoniesthatIdiscussherebelongto
118
Claudia Briones
culturalactiviststhatrefusetoparticipateinstate-sponsoredprograms,even moresowhenmultilateralfundingisinvolved.Forabroaderperspectiveon the various positionalities of Mapuche communities and organizations in Argentina,pleaseconsultBriones1999,2002a;Hernández2003;Kropff2005; Ramos2004;Valverde2004. 6. For a more detailed illustration of state policies that have affected the Mapuche people in Argentina, see for instance Briones 1999; Delrio 2003; Lenton2005.
References Beckett,Jeremy.1988.Pastandpresent:Theconstructionofaboriginality. Canberra:AboriginalStudiesPress. BrionesClaudia.1998.Laalteridaddelcuartomundo.Unadeconstrucción antropológicadeladiferencia.BuenosAires:EdicionesdelSol. ——.1999.Weaving“theMapuchePeople”:Theculturalpoliticsoforganizationswithindigenousphilosophyandleadership.UMI#9959459:495. AnnArbor,Michigan:UniversityMicrofilmsInternational. ——.2002a. “We are neither an ethnic group nor a minority but a Pueblo-NaciónOriginario.Theculturalpoliticsoforganizationswith Mapuchephilosophyandleadership.”InContemporaryperspectiveson theNativepeoplesofPampa,Patagonia,andTierradelFuego:Livingonthe edge,editedbyC.BrionesandJ.L.Lanata,101–120.BerginandGarvey SeriesinAnthropology.Westport,CT:GreenwoodPublishing. ——.2002b.MestizajeyBlanqueamientocomoCoordenadasdeAboriginalidadyNaciónenArgentina.RUNA,UniversidaddeBuenosAires 23:61–88. ——.2003.Re-memberingthedis-membered:AdramaaboutMapuche andanthropologicalculturalproductioninthreescenes(4thedition). Special Issue, “Indigenous Struggles and Contested Identities in Argentina,” edited by S. Hirsch and G. Gordillo. Journal of Latin AmericanAnthropology8(3):31–58. ——.2004.ConstruccionesdeAboriginalidadenArgentina.Bulletinde laSociétéSuissedesAméricanistes68:73–90. ——.2005. Formaciones de alteridad: Contextos globales, procesos nacionalesyprovinciales.InCartografíasArgentinas:PolìticasindigenistasyformacionesprovincialesdeAlteridad,editedbyC.Briones, 11–43.BuenosAires:EditorialAntropofagia. ——.2006.QuestioningstategeographiesofinclusioninArgentina: The cultural politics of organizations with Mapuche leadership
ExperiencesofBelongingandMapucheFormationsofSelf 119
andphilosophy.InCulturalagencyintheAmericas,editedbyDoris Sommer,248–278.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress. Briones,Claudia,LorenaCañuqueo,LauraKropff,andMiguelLeuman. 2004.Escenasdelmulticulturalismoneoliberal.Unaproyeccióndesde elsur.PonenciapresentadaenlaSegundaReunióndelGrupodeTrabajo CLACSO“CulturayPoder”coordinadoporAlejandroGrimson.Porto Alegre,15al17deseptiembre.LACES,vol.1.SanDiego. Briones,Claudia,andWalterDelrio.2002.Patriasí,Coloniastambién. Estrategias diferenciales de radicación de indígenas en Pampa y Patagonia(1885–1900).InFronteras,ciudadesyestados,TomoI,edited by A. Teruel, M. Lacarrieu, and O. Jerez, 45–78. Córdoba: Alción Editora. Briones,Claudia,andAnaRamos.2005.AudienciasyContextos:La historiade“BenettoncontralosMapuche.”E-misférica,Hemispheric Institute of Performance and Politics, New York University 2 (1), spring. Electronic document, http://hemisphericinstitute.org/ journal/2_1/briones.html,accessedDecember,22,2006. Brow,James.1990.Notesoncommunity,hegemony,andtheusesof thepast.AnthropologicalQuarterly63(1):1–6. Cañuqueo,Lorena.2003.IncheMapucheNgen.Azkintuwe.Periódico Mapuche,1,October.Electronicdocument,http://www.nodo50.org/ azkintuwe/furilofche.htm,accessedDecember,22,2006. Cañuqueo,Lorena,LauraKropff,MarielaRodríguez,andAnaVivaldi. 2005.Tierras,indiosyzonasenlaprovinciadeRíoNegro.InCartografías Argentinas:Políticasindigenistasyformacionesprovincialesdealteridad, editedbyC.Briones,119–149.BuenosAires:Antropofagia. Cayuqueo,Pedro.2004.LoskonasdeNeuquén.Azkintuwe.Periódico Mapuche,11,pp.:16–17,December.Electronicdocument,http:// argentina.indymedia.org/news/2004/12/249140.php, accessed December,22,2006. Delrio, Walter. 2003. Etnogénesis, hegemonía y nación. Construcción de identidadesennorpatagonia,1880–1930.TesisdeDoctorado,Facultad deFilosofíayLetras,UniversidaddeBuenosAires. Equipo Mapurbe. 2003. II Parlamento Mapuche del Chubut: Taiñ rakizuam. Azkintuwe. Periódico Mapuche, 2, December. Electronic document, http://www.mapuche.info/azkin/azkintuwe_02.pdf, accessedDecember22,2006. Falaschi,Carlos,FernandoSánchez,andAndreaSzulc.2005.Políticas indigenistasenNeuquén:pasadoypresente.InCartografíasArgentinas: Políticasindigenistasyformacionesprovincialesdealteridad,editedby C.Briones,179–221.BuenosAires:Antropofagia.
120
Claudia Briones
GrupodeEstudiosenAboriginalidad,ProvinciasyNación([GEAPRONA]: C.Briones,M.Carrasco,W.Delrío,D.Escolar,L.Kropff,P.Lanusse, D.Lenton,M.Lorenzetti,L.Mombello,M.Rodríguez,F.Sanchez,A. Szulc,andA.Vivaldi).2001.Loprovincialylonacional:Explorando tendenciasactualesenlosreclamosindígenasenArgentina.Ponencia enel4ºCongresoChilenodeAntropología.ColegiodeAntropólogos deChileyUniversidaddeChile.Noviembre.Electronicdocument, http://rehue.csociales.uchile.cl/antropologia/congreso/s1612.html, accessedJuly,22,2005. Grossberg,Lawrence.1992.Wegottagetoutofthisplace.popularconservatismandpostmodernculture.NewYork:Routledge. ——.1993.CulturalStudies/NewWorlds.InRace,identity,andrepresentationineducation,editedbyC.McCarthyandW.Crichlow,89–105. NewYork:Routledge. ——.1996.Identityandculturalstudies:Isthatallthereis?InQuestions ofculturalidentity,editedbyS.HallandP.DuGay,87–107.London: SagePublications. Hall,Stuart.1986.Gramsci’srelevanceforthestudyofraceandethnicity. JournalofCommunicationInquiry10(2):5–27. Hernández,Isabel.2003.Autonomíaociudadaníaincompleta.ElPueblo MapucheenChileyArgentina.Chile:CEPALyPehuénEditores. Kropff, Laura. 2005. Activismo mapuche en Argentina: Trayectoria históricaynuevastendencias.InPueblosindígenas,estadoydemocracia, editedbyPabloDávalos,103–132.BuenosAires:CLACSO. Lenton, Diana. 2005. Centauros y Alcaloides. Discurso parlamentario sobrelapolíticaindígenaenArgentina:1880–1970.TesisdeDoctorado, FacultaddeFilosofíayLetras,UniversidaddeBuenosAires. Mombello, Laura. 2005. La “mística neuquina.” Marcas y disputas deprovincianayalteridadenunaprovinciajoven.InCartografías Argentinas:Políticasindigenistasyformacionesprovincialesdealteridad, editedbyC.Briones,151–178.BuenosAires:Antropofagia. Moyano, Adrián. 2004. Las voces del Trawün. Azkintuwe. Periódico Mapuche,6,May.Electronicdocument,http://www.mapuche.info/ azkin/azkintuwe_06.pdf,accessedDecember22,2006. Olivera, Miguel, and Claudia Briones. 1987. Proceso y estructura: Transformaciones asociadas al régimen de “reserva de tierras” en una Agrupación mapuche. Cuadernos de Historia Regional. Buenos Aires,UNLU-EUDEBA,4(10):29–73. Ramos,Ana.2004.ModosdeHablarylugaressociales.Elliderazgomapuche enColoniaCushamen(1995–2002).TesisdeMaestríaenAnálisisdel Discurso, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires.
ExperiencesofBelongingandMapucheFormationsofSelf 121
Ramos, Ana, and Walter Delrio. 2005. Trayectorias de oposición. Los mapuches y tehuelches frente a la hegemonía en Chubut. In CartografíasArgentinas:Políticasindigenistasyformacionesprovincialesde alteridad,editedbyC.Briones,79–117.BuenosAires:Antropofagia. Scandizzo,Hernán.2004a.EntrevistaaLorenaCaniuqueo:Eldespertar warriache. Azkintuwe. Periódico Mapuche, 4, March. Electronic document, http://www.mapuche.info/azkin/azkintuwe_04.pdf, accessedDecember22,2006. ——.2004b. Inche ta mapunky. Jóvenes en el Puelmapu. Azkintuwe. PeriódicoMapuche,10,October.Electronicdocument,http://www. nodo50.org/azkintuwe/mari_10.htm,accessedJuly22,2005. ——.2004c.Tratamosdevolveranuestraraízdesdeelcemento.Entrevistaa FakundoHuala.Electronicdocument,http://www.mapuexpress.net/ publicaciones/mapunky-scandizzo.htm,accessedJuly22,2005. Segato,Rita.2002.IdentidadesPolíticasyAlteridadesHistóricas.Una críticaalascertezasdelpluralismoGlobal.NuevaSociedad178:104– 125. Tsing,AnnaLowenhaupt.2005.Friction.AnEthnographyofGlobalConnection.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress. Valverde,Sebastián.2004.LosmovimientosindígenasenlaArgentina:Las estrategiaspolíticasdelasorganizacionesmapuches.Lanús:Ediciones CooperativasdelaUNLa.
This page intentionally left blank
Part 2 Territory and Questions of Sovereignty
This page intentionally left blank
f o u r
Indigeneity as Relational Identity: The Construction of Australian Land Rights Francesca Merlan
I
n Australia, positively valued contrasts of indigeneity with nonindigeneity—of “indigenous people” with the nonindigenous or “settler”population—havepositedtheconsubstantialityofAboriginal beingandculturewiththe“land,”incontrastwiththeexternalityto itofnonindigenousbeing.Although“indigeneity”invariablyinvolves thenotionofconnectednesstoterritory,theextentofthisemphasis inAustraliahasbeenextraordinary. Thoughthephrase“indigenouspeople(s)”hasbecomemuchcommonerinrecentyears,theconceptofindigeneityisbynomeansnew. Itisrelevant,inAustraliaaselsewhere,attwomainlevelsofrelational contrast. First, “indigenous” (native, autochthonous and the like), contrastswithnon-native,dis-orre-placed.Inthissense,ithaslong beenpossibletoreferto,forexample,“indigenoustrees”incontrastto introducedtrees,evento“indigenouspeople”ingivenplacesincontrast withnonindigenousones,althoughsuchusagemaynotpreviouslyhave beenascommonasithasbecome.Second,throughalogicofshared difference,manycurrentusesofthetermindigenousalsopresuppose commonalityamongthosewhoare“native”andcontrastive,intheir specific locales, with the non-native. Thus, indigenous peoples may be envisioned as forming a world collectivity in contrast to their various“others.”Atthissecondlevelofrelationalidentity,thenotion of commonality among indigenous people has become much more explicit over several recent decades, in close relation to the growth
125
126
Francesca Merlan
ofinternationalorganizationsthathavemadeindigenousissuestheir specificconcern(Niezen2000).Recenttimes,inshort,havewitnessed a new collective ethnogenesis, the rise of a category of “indigenous peoples.”1 Buteach“indigenouspeople”asidentifiedinthisglobalintersection comestoitwithitsdistinctivebackgroundandsetofdebatesasthese havebeenpursued,mainly(butnotonly)withinparticularnational spaces,makingthemdifferentfromother“indigeneities.”Distinctive indigeneitieswillintersectindifferentwayswithobjectificationsand historicalstructuresshapedatthegloballevel.Anumberofrecentcritical discussionsofindigeneity(Castree2004;Hirtz2003;Niezen2000)have madethepointsthatitisanemergent,relative,“interpellative”term, withrelationshipstoplace(Escobar2001)centraltothepracticaland symboliccontestationsinvolved.Thinkingofindigeneityintermsof thetwolevelsofcontrastoutlinedaboveallowsabetterunderstanding of how the history of relationships at the first level has resulted in emphasesthatintersectinparticularwayswithdimensionsofglobal indigenism. Although the strength and widespread diffusion of the notion of Aboriginalconsubstantialitywiththelandmightmakeonethinkitis oflongstanding,thisemphasishasbecamecommonacceptationonly withinthepast30yearsorso.Inthischapter,Iexplorethequalityand theconditionsofpossibilityofthisidentification,aswellascurrent indicationsofchangeinit. TherelativerecencyoftheseviewsofAboriginalrelationshiptoland suggeststhattheirpromulgationmustbeseenaspartly,perhapseven largely, independent of Aborigines’ practice and thinking. The view ofAboriginalconsubstantialitywiththelandisbestseeninconstructionistterms,asproducedinindigenous–nonindigenousinteraction underparticularconditions(asymmetricalasbetweenthesetwocategoriesofactor),ratherthannaturalistically,asaself-evidentaspectof indigenouslifewaysthathasonlylatelyachievedsomewidernational acceptance. Some might think it perverse, and even subversive of indigenous interests,toexaminesuchaprevalentunderstandingintheseterms. By constructionism, Hacking (1998: 54) suggests we mean “various sociological,historicalandphilosophicalprojectsthataimatdisplaying oranalysingactual,historicallysituated,socialinteractionsorcausal routesthatledtoorwereinvolvedintheconstructionofanentity.”To positthatanentitysuchas“indigenouslandedness”hasbeenconstructed doesnotdenytherealityofitsconstituentelements.Butrecencyand
IndigeneityasRelationalIdentity:TheConstructionofAustralianLandRights 127
changeintheseconstructssuggeststhatwemaybestunderstandthem astime-boundandchangingproductsinwhichpracticalandsymbolic implications of indigenous–nonindigenous relationship are cast and contested.
Native—Aborigine—Indigene:TerminologicalIssues andBeyond Considerationofterminologicalusagebringstolightissuesofperiodization, generalization, and evolving ethical connotations in the relationship of Australia’s indigenous people to the changing nationstate.Thecontinuouslycontested,unsettledcharacterofdesignation may help explain the reflux and recent extension of the qualifier “indigenous,”givennewcurrencybyinternationalistusages,tocover someusagespreviouslymanagedbyuseofthe“A-terms,”“Aboriginal” and“Aborigine.” As many have observed (e.g., Attwood 1988; Beckett 1988), there wereno“Aborigines”priortoEuropeanoccupation.ThetermAborigine wasfairlystandardnationalusagebythe1980s,butoverthepasttwo decades has begun to be supplanted in some contexts by indigenous and,especially,thephrase“indigenouspeople.” Official and vernacular usages that highlighted “colour,” “degree of blood,” and the like were common into mid–20th century. The qualifyingandreferringtermnativeremainedinuseasrecentlyas1960 (and,indeed,thegovernmentalunit“NativeAffairsBranch”wasthe precursorto“DepartmentofAboriginalAffairs”),beforetheBulletin (an influential national Australian periodical) began setting it off in quotationmarksin1963(Rowse1998:9). GeneralizationandnationalizationofusageafterWWIIcenteredon variantsofthetermsaborigineandaboriginal,butinstabilitiesinthese termspointtoavarietyofissues.“Aborigine”hadthesenseof“originary,” butitsconnotationswerenotnecessarilypositive.Invernacularusage thistermwasoftenreducedto“abo”andwasdistinctlypejorative.Only recentlyhavethewordAborigineandthephrase“Aboriginalpeople” cometohavemoregenerallypositiveconnotations. Untilthelate1970s,nationalusageofaboriginewasnotcapitalized, anditssenseremainedlinkedtothegenericreferent,aborigineofany colonyofsettlement.IndigenoushistorianJamesMillerconveyedsome senseofitsfeeling–tone:“thewordAboriginalisaLatin-derivedEnglish word,whichwasoriginallyusedtorefertoanynativepeopleofany partoftheworld...[it]didnotgivemypeopleaseparateidentity”
128
Francesca Merlan
(inRowse1998:10).Replacementoflower-byuppercase“A”signaled nationalsensitivitytothequestionofmovingfromamoregenericto amorenationallyspecifickindofdesignation,onethatcouldconnote specialstatusandbelonging.Millerhimselfpreferred“Koori”(hisbook isentitledKoori:AWilltoWin,1985),anative-language-derivedterm for (indigenous) person (a regional term but now of quite extensive distribution,inNewSouthWales,Victoria,andTasmania).2 Ratherthansuchregionaldesignations,themovetosomeformof uppercase“A”filledmostofficialusages.Buttherewastroublenotonly overthebeginningoftheword,alsotheend.Foratime,government style manuals preferred Aboriginal as the adjective and singular, but accepted both Aboriginals and Aborigines as the plural. Later style recommendationsretainedAboriginalasthesingularbutoptedagainst Aboriginalsasplural.Ihaveheardajokemadeanumberoftimesby educatedAboriginalpeoplethattheyhavetroubleknowingwhether theyarenounsoradjectives—awryexpressionoffrustrationatfeeling designated,categorized,“talkedabout.”Therehasbeenatendencyfor the“-al”formstobeputasideasnouns,andfortheadjectivalform “Aboriginal” to be coupled with nouns that underline personhood and“peoplehood”(asin“Aboriginalpeoples”;cf.“Jews”vs.“Jewish people”). It is probably no surprise that the specific terms indigenous and indigeneityareofrecentlyrevisedandlimitedusageinAustralia,asis thecaseinmanyothercountrieswheretheyarecurrent.Therecent diffusionof“indigeneity”hasseeminglyoccurredthroughthework andwritingofkeyparticipantsinUNprocessesandworkinggroups, thatis,thoseapproachingsettler–“indigenous”relationsthroughthe perspectives and organizational machinery of multilateral organizations,anduniversalistictermsandvaluesincluding“humanrights.” AsignalusageinAustraliawasthatbytheAboriginalandTorresStrait Islander Social Justice Commissioner Michael Dodson in his first reportof1995entitled“IndigenousSocialJusticeStrategiesandRecommendations,”asubmissiontotheParliamentoftheCommonwealthof Australia.Dodson,thefirstCommissioner,hadbeenaparticipantinthe WorkingGrouponIndigenousPopulations,created(afteranumberof preliminarymeetings,seeNiezen2000:126–129)astheprincipalUN groupconcernedwithindigenouspeople’srights. InthenorthernAustralianAboriginalsettlementsandtowncampsI know(Merlan1998),peopledonotdesignatethemselvesas“indigenous” andhaveno,oronlypassive,familiaritywiththeword.Thosewho workinwhatissometimesacerbicallycalledbycriticsthe“Aboriginal
IndigeneityasRelationalIdentity:TheConstructionofAustralianLandRights 129
industry”—federalbureaucratsinrelevantareas;oremployeesofsuch StateorganizationsastheAboriginalAreasProtectionAuthority—recall the word indigenous having come into usage in the 1980s as greater levelsofparticipationcameaboutonthepartofrathersmallnumbers ofAboriginalpeopleintheWorldCouncilofIndigenousPeople(formed inCopenhagenin1977),andwhichconveneditsthirdgeneralassembly inCanberrain1985. Therecentorrefocusedterminologyof“indigeneity”overlapsand(to date)onlyinspecificcontextssupersedestheterminologyofreference thathadbeeninplace. Butthisterm,likeformsofthe“A-word,”doesnotlenditselfgracefully touseasanoun.Andinanycase,thephrase“indigenouspeople(s)” tends to be the restricted usage of the more activist and educated indigenousfew,hardlythevocabularyoflocalcommunitymembers.As withtheinitialvacillationaboutthecapitalizationof“Aborigine,”there hasbeensomedebateinAustraliaaboutwhetherupper-orlowercase “I”isappropriatetothisword,partlyaquestionaboutspecificityversus generality,butalsoaboutdignifyingitsreference. Modes of designating Australian people(s) or “populations” have, inshort,beenunsettledandcontentious.“Indigenous,”too,doesnot solveusageproblems,becauseitbelongstoaneducatedregisterand alsosuggestsauniversalismthatmanyindigenouspeoplefindforeign. Toacknowledgethat“indigeneity”asaconceptualterm,andonenow usedtorefertokindsofpersonsandinterests,hasrecentlybeenpressed intowiderserviceistorecognizeits“constructed”character. Letusnowreturntothewiderconstructionistemphasisofrecent decadeswithwhichwebegan,namely,thatofAustralianindigeneity (still continentally as likely to be called “Australian Aboriginality”) as involving consubstantial relationship to land. The national consciousness of Aborigines as “belonging to” the land has emerged in thepost–WWIIperiod,aspartoftherevindicationofAboriginal“difference.” During that time, the relationships constitutive of global indigenousorganizationhaveincreasedmanyfold,withlandedness asoneofthemanyissuescirculatingwithinthem.
LandednessinSociopoliticalContext:TheGrowthof CulturalistEmphasis Ideas about the consubstantiality of Aboriginal being with the land nowhaveawidedistribution,especiallyamongthosewithanypositive orientationtowardindigenousmatters.Thefollowingsketchesexemplify
130
Francesca Merlan
itscirculationinacademicwriting,aswellasamongprominentindigenousbureaucratsandotherspokespeople. IndigenousAustralianpopularmusicianKevCarmodyisquotedas saying, “The whole culture is based on the spirituality of the land. It’salmostasifthewholelandwasacathedral”(Maddock1991:227, fromSydneyMorningHeraldJuly7,1989).Carmodygrewuponacattle stationontheDarlingDownsofsoutheastQueensland,thesonofan “Irish-Murri”(IrishAboriginal)marriage.Sentawayfromhometoa Christianschoolatageten,helaterspentsomeyearsasabackcountry laborer.Attheageof33,hewenttoUniversity.Hehasreleasedsong albumssteadilysince1989,andworksinavarietyofstyles:country, reggae,andfunk.Manyofhissongsdealwithblackdeathsincustody, land rights, and Aboriginal dispossession, and he espouses broader, left-leaningpoliticalconcernsandinterests. GalarrwuyYunupingu,formerdirectoroftheNorthernLandCouncil, issuedarecentcollectionofpaperswiththetitle,“OurLandIsOurLife” (Yunupingu1997).BornatYirrkalainnortheastArnhemLandwhen itwasstillaMethodistmission,asapromisingyoungmanheserved as a translator for his elders when, after some years of preliminary disputation,in1968theindigenouspeopleoftheareabroughtasuit againstNabalco(aSwissminingcompany),andtheAustralianCommonwealth(whichhadexcisedforthecompanyaminingleasefrom theArnhemReserve,gazettedsince1933),inoppositiontothetakeover ofwhattheyregardedastheirlandforthedevelopmentofabauxite mine.Thedecision,handeddownin1971bytheNorthernTerritory SupremeCourt,foundthattherewasnodoctrineofcommunalnative titleinAustralianlaw,renderingsuperfluousmoredetailedanalysisof certainaspectsoftheclaimants’case.Italsofoundthatwhilethese Yolngu people had relations to the land amounting to a complex system of tenure, their claim was not proprietary, since it allowed neitherforexclusionnoralienation;andthecourtwasnotsatisfied that the group relationship to land had persisted unchanged since thedeclarationofBritishsovereigntyoverAustralia,whichitheldto benecessaryforapositivefindingfortheclaimants(Williams1986). Thislong-runningcasewasakeyeventinthedevelopmentof“land rights”asa—attimesthe—centralindigenousissueonthenational agenda. A kind of social science portrayal that has emerged in recent ethnography may be illustrated by brief quotation from a recent book, entitled Land Is Life: From Bush to Town, The Story of the Yanyuwa People:
IndigeneityasRelationalIdentity:TheConstructionofAustralianLandRights 131
Ihavechosenthetitle“landislife”tostresshowimportantlandisto the Yanyuwa. For the Yanyuwa, the land is alive with meanings. The land tells the stories of creation. The spirits of ancestral beings reside inthelandanddemandrespect.Thelandalsotellsthestoryofcontact history. For example, the signs of old camps and old cattle yards are theretoberead.Yanyuwatravellingthecountrywilloftenaddressthe landandtheirancestorsthatareembodiedinit.Theintimatelinkingof landandlifeinAboriginalwaysofperceivingtheworldiswellillustrated by the catch phrase of the modern Aboriginal land rights movement “landislife,”whichtakesthefamousAmericangeographerCarlSauer’s expression“landandlife”onestepfurther.(Baker1999:5)
Baker,aculturalgeographer,commentsthat“theAboriginalunderstanding that land has a personality that needs to be understood is somethingculturalgeographershaveonlyrecentlydiscovered”(Baker 1999:6).Thisunderstandingundoubtedlyhasbeenmostfullydeveloped intherecentworkofanthropologists,anddiffusedtootherdisciplines. It has also blossomed in a variety of forms, but probably the most influentialhavebeenthoseofpopularculture:novels,documentaries, andfilms,suchasRoeg’sfilmWalkabout(1971),Chatwin’sbookSonglines (1987),MarloMorgan’sMutantMessageDownUnder(2004),andworks ofbiography,history,andsong. Emphases in the Australianist ethnological and anthropological literatureonsocioterritorialitycanbeshowntohavechangedagreat deal over time. The classic late-19th- and early-20th-century ethnographies of Spencer and Gillen (e.g., The Arunta 1927) described a landscape crisscrossed with what are now called “dreaming tracks,” and dotted with named places associated with events of ancestral movementandcreation;therewaslittleelaborationofthebodilyand personalconnections,subsequentlydocumentedbyanthropologists, inwhichwenowunderstandrelationsofpeopletoplacestobecast. Evidenceandinterpretationoftheseemergedoverseveraldecadesin theworkofT.G.H.Strehlow(1965,1970),Stanner(1958,1965),Munn (1970), and others, partly in the context of anthropological studies ofreligionandsymbolism.Anthropologicalethnographiesofthelast severaldecadeshavetendedtohavethedimensionoflandednessat their core, in a period marked by shift in government policy from emphasis on assimilation—the policy goal of leveling of differences betweenAboriginesandothers—togreateropennesstothepersistence ofdifference,afederalpolicyrubricof“self-determination,”andthe creationofanorganizationalframeworkoflandrights,landfunds,and
132
Francesca Merlan
sacredsitesprotection(Bennett1989:29–37;Nettheim,Meyers,and Craig2002:chs.11–13). In the period before WWII, calls for social justice and land rights for Aborigines came from churches, unions, Communists and other relativelymarginalbutsociallycriticalgroups,oftenincollaboration with activist indigenous representatives (Merlan 2005: 478–480 and referencestherein).Inthelate1960s,theredevelopedanurban-based, moreradicalindigenousactivismstronglyinfluencedbyAmericanBlack Power models (Curthoys 2002; Foley 2001). A call for “land rights” emerged,largelyfromurban-basedindigenousactivistsinSydneyand Melbourne. Especially at first, this was a political demand strongly groundedinprotestofdispossessionwithoutanecessarilyorstrictly traditionalistculturalcontent.Butthenextfewdecades,fromthe1970s tothepresent,weretoseethestrengtheningofrequirementsthat“land rights” be based on traditionalist criteria, without which passage of statutorymeasuresmayhavebeenpoliticallyindefensible.3 ThepassageofafederallandrightsstatuteintheNorthernTerritory (theAboriginal[NorthernTerritory]LandRightsAct1976),establishment ofreservesandlandrightsregimesinotherstates,and,mostrecently, theMaboHighCourtdecisionof1992(amountingtoapositivefinding concerningcommunalnativetitle,asopposedtotheYirrkalacase)andthe passageofafederalNativeTitleAct1993,havecreateddemandforreports andevidenceconcerningthesituationofparticularindigenousgroups. Thisworkhasinvolvedanthropologists,archaeologists,historians,and nonacademicprofessionals,notablylawyers.Anthropologicalunderstandingsofthespecificformsofconnectednessofpeopletolandhave becomearesourceinlegalprocessesbasedontraditionalistterms,and playedsomeroleintheshapingofpublicunderstandingofthestrength, if not the particulars, of connection between Aboriginal people and land. The processes of land rights and native title claims have been subjectsofanthropologicalanalysis,alensthroughwhichtoobserve thedynamicsoftheinteractionofgovernmentswithindigenouspeople andorganizationscreatedintheirinterest(Glaskin2002;Merlan1998; Povinelli2002). Despiteallthis,therehasbeencallfor,butresistanceto,recognition ofindigenousrelationtolandonanationallevel.ThefederalLabor governmentoftheearly1980sexperimentedwithextendingaland rightsprogramtotheentirecountry,butwasforcedintodisarrayby objectionsfromitsownpartypoliticiansatStatelevel,fromcorporate Australia, and the broader populace (Rowse 1988). Passage of the Native Title Act (1993) came closest, amounting to recognition that
IndigeneityasRelationalIdentity:TheConstructionofAustralianLandRights 133
“native title” may have survived, and providing the means for this questiontobeexaminedinparticularinstances.Itwashowever,not, straightforwardlyameasureofrecognition,butpartlypreemptive:legal findingsofcommunalnativetitleonanislandintheTorresStraitbetweenPapuaNewGuineaandAustralia(the1992Mabocase)created anatmospherethat,althoughgreetedbysome,wasseenbyothersas creating “uncertainty,” and requiring statutory management. There hascomeaboutanunderstandingofAboriginalconsubstantialitywith theland,andatthesametime,struggletocontainwhatmightbethe consequencesofgeneralrecognitionofAboriginallandedness. Certain obvious ways of explaining the centrality of struggle over land,althoughrelevant,areinthemselvesinsufficienttounderstanding it.Somemightdeprecatethecoinage,seetheintensityofconcernwith land rights as a consequence of Australia’s having so much of it to negotiatewith.Buttheintensityofstrugglehasshownthatlandisnot freelygiven.Otherswouldseetheemphasisasanaturalconsequence ofthecharacterandintensityofAborigines’relationshiptoland;butit isimplausiblethattheemphasisonattachmentand“landrights”can beinterpretedsimplyasindigenousinitiativeoradirectrenderingof indigenouspriorities.Over50percentofthosecensusedasindigenous in2001liveinornearmajorcities(althoughitisequallyimportantthat indigenouspeopleaccountfornearlyhalfofthoseresidentsinremote Australia).4Nosinglekindofrelationshiptocountrycanbepresumed amongtheindigenouspopulation.Norwouldindigenouspeopleby themselvesbelikelytoprojectasinglekindofrepresentation,though manynodoubtprofessstrongattachmenttocountry.Inanyevent, I take the view of Jones and Hill-Burnett (1982: 235) that although “cultureisanimportantpartoftheprocess[ofethnogenesis,orthe emergenceofidentity],theroleitplaysisneithersimplenordirect.”It isimportanttodistinguishtheexpressionsofattachmentofindigenous peopleandgroupstolandsfromthe“transvalued”nationalemphasis onconsubstantialitywith“theland”(cf.Tambiah1996:192),which cannotbeinterpretedasunmediatedindigenousexpression. Sometheoristshavetendedtosuggestthatpolicyorientationsconcerning place and territoriality have been principally authored by indigenouspeoplethemselves.Escobar(2001),forexample,designates “defensivelocalization”theerectionofbarriersaroundplaceonthepart ofindigenouspeople.Castreeusesthephrase“stronglocalism”forthe notionofan“exclusionary”placeproject“pursuedattheexpenseof widernonindigenousgroupingswithinandbeyondnationalborders” (2004: 163). Such versions may be applicable in some contexts. But
134
Francesca Merlan
despitesomedefensivepopulistAustralianunderstandingsoflandrights insuchterms(oronesinvolvingmanipulationofindigenouspeople andinterestsbyothers),indigenous“defensivelocalization”isnotan appropriateanalysisofAustralianversionsoflandrights.Oneimportant reasonwhyislackofresonancewithindigenousunderstandings,over thelengthofsettlementhistory.Letusconsidersomeexamplesofthe disparitybetweenwhatseemtobemoredirectindigenouslyauthored expressionsofintentionversusothers. In a number of well-documented instances, Aborigines in earlier colonizedpartsofAustraliademandedlandasamatterofrightjoined totheiraimtopursueagrarianlivelihoodfromearlycolonialsettlement (see,e.g.,Barwick1998;Goodall1996).InthelandmarkGurindjiwalk offofthe1960s,Aboriginalworkerssubjectovermanyyearstopoor conditions on the large, English-owned Wave Hill cattle property in the northwestern Northern Territory, initially conceived of their emergentstruggleasoneforbetterconditions,betterwages,andfor “citizenship” rights. The extension to Aborigines of “citizenship” or “citizen’s rights” was generally seen in the 1960s as the progressive wayforwardinthemanagementofindigenousissues,butwasthen expectedtofacilitatemoreorlessrapidassimilationtoa“mainstream” Australianwayoflife.AlthoughWaveHillAboriginesprobablydidnot expressthemselvesinthoseterms,theyclearlywishedtohavemeans topursueanindependentlivelihood.EventuallyWaveHillworkersalso demandedaportionoflandfromtheWaveHillleaseholdonwhich they planned to establish their own cattle company.5 Their original claimsforimprovedconditionsweretransmutedintoamuchbroader emergentdemandfor“landrights”that,althoughitresonatedwith Gurindjiunderstandingsoftheirrelationstocountry,wasinconception andorganizationpartlyofoutsideorigin.WaveHillAborigineswere advisedthroughouttheirstrugglebyunionandAustralianCommunist Party members (Attwood 2003: 187–190, 260–282; Hardy 1968) a fact that partly accounts for the syndicalist emphasis in their early demands. The conception of “land rights” as stemming from and sustainingadistinctivelyAboriginalcultureismorerecent,andtends tobeformulatedasamatterofprincipleandmorality,distancedfrom practicalconsiderations. TheexamplesgivenaboveshowthatAboriginalpeople,too,tended toconceptualizerestorationoflandpartlyasamatterofentitlement andjustice,butalsoasthebasisoflivelihood.Atvarioustimespolicy effortsweremadetoexplicitlylinkeverydaylivelihoodconcernswith landrights.Asmentionedabove,initialformulationofthefederalland
IndigeneityasRelationalIdentity:TheConstructionofAustralianLandRights 135
rights bill in the mid-1970s included provision for land grants on a “needs”basis(Merlan1994).6Butthiswasdroppedastoocontentious andpoliticallydifficulttoachieve:ifpeoplearesimply“needy,”how do they differ from the other needy people? What entitlement can they evince? In 1974, an Aboriginal Land Fund Commission was federallyfundedtobuylandforAboriginalcorporategroups.Thelater IndigenousLandFundestablishedbytheKeatingLaborgovernment in the 1990s (at the same time as a broader “social justice package” wasformulated)hasbeenintendedtoprovideforpurchaseoflandfor thoseindigenouspeoplewhoseemunlikelytobenefitfromlandclaims, nativetitle,orothermeasuresthatrequiredemonstrationofcontinuous, traditionallybasedrelationstoland.However,pressuresarisingfrom themodesofgovernmentplanning,fundingandaccountabilityhave demonstrablyskewedsomeland-basedprojectstowardunrealistically large, commercially oriented ventures where Aborigines themselves may have had something much more modest, locally focused and continuous with their previous experience in mind (see Cowlishaw 1999;Thiele1982). The connection between entitlement (as “traditional owner” or “nativetitleholder”)andresourceandincomeissueshasbeenamong theliveliestandmostcontentiousquestionsinrelationtolandclaims andgrantsamonglocalindigenouspeople.Thismustbeseeninlight of the fact that even land granted through the land-rights process remains,inmanyways,permeabletoexternalinterventionsofmany kinds.Notionally“inalienableAboriginalfreehold”thatresultsfrom grant in the Northern Territory Land Rights process is inherently permeable,inthatsubsurfacemineralrights,thoughsubjecttoroyalty negotiation,remainwiththeBritishCrown(asistrueofalllandin Australia).Negotiations,however,mayresultinbenefitstreams.The other side of this coin is that many Aboriginal groups are keen for exploration,andsometimesalsominingdevelopment,tooccur(where thisdoesnotmeetwithstronglocalobjectionsonparticulargrounds). Negotiationofpossibledevelopmenthasonmanyoccasionsrevealed diversityofopinionaboutconnectiontoplaces,allowableconditionsof theirexploitation,andintensestruggleamongindigenouspeopleover criteriaandlevelsofentitlementtoinvolvementandtobenefit.Theysee theseissuesof“culture”andidentityasfundamental,butsuchstruggles oftendrawadversecommentfromobserverswhohaveinternalizedan etherealizedculturalistviewofindigenousrelationstoland. All this points to complex production of connection to land as indigenousissue.Thequestion,“Whatisindigeneity?”iscomplicated,
136
Francesca Merlan
andnotonlyatthelevelofcountingnoses(Castree2004;Niezen2000); sohasbeenthequestionofwhetherandhowconnectiontolandmay beformulatedasanindigenousissue. Landrightsprocesseshaveproducednotableoutcomes—abouthalf oftheNorthernTerritoryisAboriginalinalienablefreehold.Nativetitle resultshave,onthewhole,beenprotractedandlessdecisive.7Butsuccess forthosewhocanachieveitcanbedisenfranchisinganddisempowering ofthosewhocannotdemonstratetheappropriatekindofrelationship; andalso,ofthosewho,whiletheymightbeabletodemonstratesuch arelationshiptolandifpressed,donotseeanimperativetodosoand thereforecanalsobejudgedwanting(seeexamplesinMerlan1995, 1998;Povinelli2002). Sincethe1970s,landrightshasbeenconstitutedasanindigenous issueinpressurizedandoftenadversarialcircumstances.Castbysome asaquestionofnationallegitimacy,restorationoflandtoAborigines is seen by others to imperil the sovereignty of the Australian state. Thefindingofnativetitlehasbeenunderstoodbysometoraisethe specterthatallofAustraliamaybesubjecttocontestas“Aboriginal land.”Despitesomeoftheseperspectives,politicianshavegenerally been pragmatic about what the electorate will accept. And despite assertionsofsomethatrelationshiptolandisintegraltoAboriginal culture,formsoflandrightsandnativetitlerepeatedlyraisequestionsin theelectorateabout“specialtreatment.”Fromthelate1960s,therehas beenactivistassertion,andatleastpartialnationalacceptance,ofthe viewthatindigenousrecuperationwithoutlandrightsisimpossible.But atthesametime,arelated,butdifferent,ideahadhadsomecurrency, thatthegrantingoflandtoAborigineswouldinitselfberestorative, andallowthemtolivebetterlives.Especiallyinthelastseveralyears, consistentreportingofdireAboriginallivingconditionshassupported skepticism about the practical and restorative values of land rights, and has stimulated renewed expression of views that Aborigines’ entitlementstolandshouldbenodifferentfromanyoneelse’s(e.g., Howson2005). Constitutionof“landrights”askeyindigenousissueoverthelast severaldecadeshasbeenachievedbygeneralizing,etherealizingand essentializing notions of the relationship of Aborigines to land, and restoration of entitlement to land as crucial to indigenous identity, recuperationaswellasnationallegitimacy.Theformsofstrugglehave seentheconstructionoflandrightspushedinaculturalistdirection, anddistancedfromquestionsofhowindigenouspeoplelive,andare tolive,thattheyhadthemselvesoftenposed.
IndigeneityasRelationalIdentity:TheConstructionofAustralianLandRights 137
AustraliainContext “Indigenism,” Castree (2004: 151) proposes, is about the control of place;contemporaryindigeniststrugglesareovergoodsthatareallplace linked,includinglanditself,materialartifacts,andknowledges.There ispalpableanxietyaboutwhatcontrolmightmeaninthecontextof indigenous–nonindigenousrelationsinAustralia. Characteristic of Australia is the extent to which Aboriginal (or indigenous)issuestoucharawnerve:theyare“unfinishedbusiness.” Sensitivity is shown by the designation as “History Wars” of recent debates concerning historical interpretation. Recent histories that seektobreakwhatanthropologistWilliamStanner(1968)calledthe “greatAustraliansilence”bybringingtolightthecolonialtreatment ofindigenouspeoplehavebeendubbed“blackarmband”history.The phrasewascoinedbyAustralianhistorianProfessorGeoffreyBlainey in1993,andusedapprovinglyafewyearslaterbyAustralia’scurrent (1996–2006) Prime Minister, John Howard. These “wars” are highly oppositional, the “history” involved clearly not considered past in terms of its symbolic and practical potential. Over the last 35 years since the Yirrkala decision, they have played a role in a shift from viewsofsettlementhistoryastheoccupationofunderutilized,perhaps unownedterritory,8toprevalent(ifnotuniversal)viewsofitashaving involvedcolonialappropriation.Thischangehasbeenstimulatedby debatearoundmanylegaldecisionsonrelatedmattersinAustraliaand theCommonwealth(see,e.g.,discussionofAustralianandCanadian land rights cases in Nettheim, Myers, and Craig 2002: 86–89), and concomitantdebateinvolvinggovernment,academicians,courtsand othersabouthistory,memory,andpossibilitiesofreconciliation. Butjustaswiththeformulationoflandrights,thismorerevealing historycannotbesimplygeneralizedas“indigenous”history.Thatis,it isnothistoryasagreatmanyindigenouspeoplewouldnarratetheirpast. Manyoftheirowntellingswouldbemorelocalistic,inclusiveoftheir owncooptationbysettlersandoutsiders,andthoughmorallygrounded, lessjudgmentalandopentothemultifacetedandapproachablequalities ofoutsidersthatbecomeevidentincloseinteraction,despiteknown factsoftheirhavingactedcruellyandunjustly(Cowlishaw1999;Hercus andSutton1986;Merlan1978;Rose1984;Rowse1987). Indigenouslocalismisrelatedtotheincompleteness,orfragmentariness,ofnationalindigenousaction.Someofthemostpenetrating anthropologicalaccountshavetreatedlocalismandsmallscaleasan essential characteristic of indigenous Australian social formations.
138
Francesca Merlan
AnthropologistBasilSansom(1982)arguesthat,paradoxically,localismis whatsocialordersacrossthecontinenthaveincommon:“particularistic manifestations, consociate experience and a conception of a closed setofotherswhoaretrulyandreallyone’sCountrymen.”ThissmallscalequalityofAboriginallifeconstitutesthecontinental“Aboriginal commonality,”and“containsthecountervailingforcesthatwouldneed tobeovercomeifapan-Aboriginalethnogenesisweretobeachieved” (Sansom1982:135).Thebuildingofindigenoustranslocalsolidarities would, on this view, necessarily involve considerable social change. Thischange,paradoxically,islargelyachievedintheextenttowhich indigenous people become exposed to, and internalize, wider social perspectivesandrelativizetheirownsituationintermsofthem. Jones and Hill-Burnett (1982) called “ethnogenesis” the development through the 1960s and 1970s of a pan-Aboriginal movement. Internationallinkages(e.g.,toUNandotherworldbodies)weremore limited than they are now. They emphasize tension between localismanddemandsforbroaderunityinthegenerationofacommon Aboriginalityandpoliticalmobilization.Indigenouspositionsbecame more focused at a national level in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Althoughcertaineventswereundoubtedlyinfluential(e.g.,theestablishmentofanAboriginal“tentembassy”infrontofParliamentHouse on Australia Day, 1972), these were organized and carried out by a small group of militants (Foley 2001; Jones and Hill-Burnett 1982: 222)—often called “urban activists”—and could not by themselves bringAboriginalconstituenciesfromaroundthecountrytogether.The differentcharacterandtime-depthofsettler–indigenousrelationsin differentpartsofthecontinenthaveresultedinpersisting,substantial indigenous differentiation. Radicalism, much to the frustration of “urban” activists, is frequently disavowed and avoided by what are oftencalled“tradition-orientedAborigines.”Arguably,theconcerting ofindigenouspositionsismostlikelyinconfrontationaldialoguewith “outside” agents and organizations. For example, government (and often,thegeneralpopulace),oftentakeunifyingviewsofAborigines as a “problem” in terms of economic, health, social and political issues,creatingcircumstancesthateffectivelyrequireandsometimes produce unity of response. To this day it is meaningful to speak of nationaldimensionsofindigenoussocialmobilizationonlyasinclose interrelationwithsupportingstructuresofthewidersociety. Thelate1960sradicalismreferredtoabovecontrastswith,butalso makesmoresenseintermsof,thefactthatAustraliangovernmenthas tended to take a controlling role in the formation (and dissolution)
IndigeneityasRelationalIdentity:TheConstructionofAustralianLandRights 139
ofpoliticalrepresentativegroupsamongAborigines.Governmenthas consistentlysoughttotreatpeakbodiesasadvisory,ratherthanconcedethemexecutivepowers(seeHoward1977;Rowse2000;Tatz1977, among many other references to this issue). This was most recently exemplified by the dissolution of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderCommission(ATSIC),thesuccessortothefederalDepartment of Aboriginal Affairs and peak indigenous body from 1989, in April 2004, and the mainstreaming of its functions within government departments.Thegovernmenthasnamedasmallindigenousadvisory groupfromacrossthecontinenttotakeitsplace.Overtime,thiscontrol hasreproducedthetendencyforanyemergentindigenouselitetobe partof,ordirectlydependenton,governmentalstructures.Jonesand Hill-Burnett(1982:224)suggestedakeyproblemassociatedwiththis is “how a population can produce changes in their status while the consciousness is controlled by the institutions of the larger society” (1982:239).Iwouldnotacceptthatformulationinfull.AsIhavetried toshowelsewhere(Merlan1995,2005),effortsatsuch“control”are oftenbluntedagainstindigenousformsofunderstandingthatarenot inthetermsgenerallyformulatedinthepressandpublicsettingsof thedominantsociety.This“otherness”—orlackofattunement—can inhibitAboriginalpeople’sabilitytomaketheirtermsintelligibletoa widerpublic,andtoachieveresultsthatreflectthem. WhileitiseasytopointtofactorsthatlimitthegrowthofAboriginal politicalsolidarity,formsofAustralian“semisovereignty”withrespect to continental space and national identity play a role in shaping projectionsofindigeneitycapableofgeneralizationandmediationto governmentandnonindigenousAustraliansociety. AustraliafamouslyemergedasadumpinggroundforBritishconvicts, someofwhomwerenotsomuchcriminalastheflotsamandjetsam ofBritishmodernizationandtheeffectsofitsimperialfreetradeand deagrarianization policies. That kind of self-understanding is now subjectivelypast(ifabsorbing)historyformostAustralians.Butthat Australiahasalways,inthisandotherways,beendirectlyshapedby theplayofinternationalforcesismoreimmediatelyrelevant.Australia developedasaparticularkindofcolony,boundtoitsmothersociety in almost immediate, full-blown dependence on the growth of the worldwooltradeandBritain’sphaseof“textileindustrialism”andthe displacementofsheepfarmingforwooltothesouthernhemisphere. Australia’s second destiny was to serve as a “geographical branch of English agricultural capitalism” (McMichael 1984: 243). Pastoralism and agriculture have been differentially distributed in accordance
140
Francesca Merlan
withgeographicalpossibility,andhaveconstitutedtwofairlydistinct continentalaccumulativeregimes. Australia’senvironmental,social,andhistoricalpeculiaritiesareall linked. Australia was settled from its coasts and its (nonindigenous) populationlargelylivesthere.Pastoralism,especiallyinthenorthand west,hastendedtooverlapmorecompletelywiththose“openspaces” inwhichAboriginalsystemsoflawandcustomweremorelikelyto surviveinrecognizableformintheirnecessaryadaptationstosettler society.Forallitssize,Australianmetropole–hinterlandrelationshave always been massively skewed toward the urban. Just 40 years after settlement,inthePortPhilipregion,theurbanpopulationofSydney was double the rural one. Coastal urban areas are widely separated; inlandinfrastructureissparse.Today,followingtrendsdetectiblesince theearly20thcentury,mostinlandnonmetropolitanareasarelosing population,andsomeassertthattheinlandhaslostitspopulationbase (Cribb1994).Growthareasaremetropolitanfringeandcoastal.The federaliststatesystemishighlycentrist. Thecontinentisseven-tenthsaridorsemiarid,andoflimitedarability (resultinginenormouscostsof“productivist”landusepractices,Grayand Lawrence2001:140,143).Bothruralregimes,pastoralandagricultural, have had to deal over the long term with problems of markets, the tyranny of distances, and susceptibility to foreign ownership. Post– WWIIprosperityintheagriculturalsector,andtheriseofJapanasa majoragriculturalimporter,contributedtoreinforcementofAustralia’s freemarketorientationaswellasitsmarketdependence,andthedirect impact of world processes on local productive and social relations. Retreat from land-extensive commodity production in parts of the continent, and conversion where possible to the “amenity” regimes ofparksandtourismhasbeenmarked(Holmes1996;Merlan1999). Mining, the extractive industry par excellence, remains Australia’s greatestsectorofdirectforeigninvestmentbyfar. Inchangingwaysovertime,thesespecializedandproductivistrelations to the Australian continent have readily lent themselves to imaginings of originary indigeneity, focused more on remote than settler-proximateareas(althoughvariationsexist,suchasportrayalof persisting“traditionality”beneathmetropolitanSydneyinthefilmThe LastWave[Weir1977]).Theseperspectivesarepermeatedbycertain imaginingsofindigenouspersonhood(evenifithasbecomepolitically incorrecttosayso).Australianshavealwaysfantasized“undomesticated” Aboriginality,andimagineditscontinuationinremotespaces.Tosome extentthishasdeflectedpublicattentionfromchanging,actual,and
IndigeneityasRelationalIdentity:TheConstructionofAustralianLandRights 141
oftendeplorablelivingconditionsofremote-areaindigenouspeople (but representations of this have become more insistent and harder todispelinrecentyears).Thereis,thus,susceptibilitytonotionsof indigenousoccupationofthecontinenton“indigenousterms,”precluding(intheviewofmany)thelegitimacyofmodifiedlifestylesand technologies(e.g.,Toyotas).Notionsofcontinentalindigeneitycenter representationallyontheremote-areapopulation,whosephenotypical and cultural distinctiveness make them most clearly identifiable by thegeneralpublicas“authentically”continuouswiththeprecolonial population.Ontosuchindigenouspeopleareprojectednotionsofmaximal difference compared to the wider society and its occupancy of land.(However,theviewofAboriginesaslivingintermsofconserving, nontransformativerelationstocountryisnowalsosometimesdebunked asanachronistic.) Onthesesomewhatproblematicbases—despairandcelebrationof thealienandintractablequalitiesofthecontinent,andofAborigines as“outthere”andculturallyandphysicallydistinctive—“landrights” havebeencapableofservingascollectiveculturalsymbolforindigenous andnonindigenouspeople,and(withsomegreaterdifficulty)object of practical struggle. Though earliest and most clearly articulated as a political demand by urban-dwelling indigenous activists, “needs”baseddemandandpoliticalprotesthaverepeatedlybeentranslatedinto nationalrepresentationsofindigenousattachmenttocountryfeaturinga rathermetaphysicalviewoftheautochthonousindigene.Paradoxically, institutionalized forms of land rights achieved on the basis of these strugglesquicklyturnout,problematically,toforcetheexposure(e.g., throughclaimsandthelegalandadministrativeprocessesofnativetitle) ofwhatappears,accordingtothepubliccriteriaestablished,tobethe “inauthenticity,”theinsufficiencyaccordingtotraditionalistcriteria, ofallbutthefew(Merlan1998;Povinelli1993). Contrastingwiththisnativizingviewofthecontinent,thehistory ofgovernanceandsettlementinAustraliahasalwaysbeenthoroughly inflected by a carefully considered liberal economism (Collins 1985 suggestivelycharacterizesAustraliaas“Benthamite”—utilitarian,legalist andpositivist)thatcontainsitssocialandculturalcapacitytorecognize andvaluesuchdifferenceasAboriginesrepresent,whetherfantasizedor moreobjectivelyappreciated.Theformulationofindigenoustitleunder theLandRightsActintheNorthernTerritoryas“inalienablefreehold” enshrinesatimelessrelationtoland.(Thisalsopreventsitsbeingsold off,andAborigines’completedisplacementfromit.)Intermsofwhat manypersonsandorganizationsseeasthe“real”world,thisversionof
142
Francesca Merlan
ownershipiscriticizedassingularandanallegedbarriertoeconomic activity.Objectionstolandrightssofarenshrinedmaycometohave renewedsignificanceinthenearfuture,as—givencurrentworldwide senseofenergycrisis—larger-scaleexportofuraniumcomesbackonthe politicalhorizon,muchoftheknownreserveinpartsoftheNorthern TerritoryandremoteAustraliawhereAborigineseitherhavefreehold titleorformsofpursuableinterest. Nonindigenousandindigenouskindsofrelationstolandareoften consideredpolaropposites,andirreconcilable.Inpractice,theysometimesare(Merlan1991).Neweremphasesonregionalandpartnership agreements among Aboriginal organizations and government have produced productive and cooperative models in some instances (see ATSIC 2003: 222 ff.). Benthamite or otherwise, they exemplify possibilitiesofmoderateandoutcome-focusedapproachestonegotiation ofinterests.Futurediscussioninthese(ifnotmoreoppositional)terms seemsboundtoinvolvequestionsofthecapacityofAboriginal-held land to be commoditized and, thus, capable of being more directly broughtwithintheproductivisttermsofAustraliancolonialsettlement. Such questions may be raised in future by indigenous, as well as nonindigenouspeople.
Implications Incharacterizingindigeneityasemergent,relative,and“interpellative,” Castree also recognizes that the recent expansion of translocal interconnectionandsolidarityrepresentsashiftinscaleandintensity ofactivity;andthatsuchextension“establishescommonalityamong manifestdifferences”(2004:153). TheparticularAustralianconstructionoflandrightsasindigenous issue, always contentious and never wholeheartedly accepted by the wider population, has been molded in the interactions between indigenousandnonindigenouspersonsandagencies.Ithasdependedon representationsofAboriginesandtheirrelationstolandintraditionalist andessentialistterms.Ihavesketchedsomebackgroundtothenational susceptibility and tendency to such terms, as well as opposition to them. Land rights (including, for these purposes, also native title) have madepossiblegreatpracticalgainsinsomeways,broughtaboutreal changesinnationalawarenessandrecognitionofindigenouspeople, andplayedarole,withbothpositiveandnegativeconsequences,inthe reinforcementandcontestationofidentitypoliticsamongindigenous
IndigeneityasRelationalIdentity:TheConstructionofAustralianLandRights 143
people themselves. But land rights have also reinforced already strong,limitingideaswithinAustraliansocietyconcerningauthentic Aboriginalidentityandbeingasnecessarilylinkedtoland,orelseof lesservalue;andhavedelayedrecognitionofthewaysinwhich,now thatindigenouspeoplearenolongerchieflydependentonlandfor their daily subsistence, their relations to it are recontextualized and relativizedtootheraspectsoftheirlives.Ithasrecentlybecomemore possibletosayopenlythatnoreturnoflandtoindigenouspeoplewill, byitself,berestorativetotheextent,orpreciselyintheways,imagined bymanyattheoutsetbylandrightssupporters.Thereisanguishedcall forimprovementinindigenoussocialconditions,whichwillprobably neitherbeas“traditional”astherestofAustraliamightimagine,noras fully“assimilated”todominantAustralianwaysoflifeassomemight wish. Recently,someindigenousleadershavemoderatedtheemphasison indigenousdistinctivenessasthebasisof(cultural)survival,andhave focusedonnotionsofresponsibility,livelihood,theneedforproductive socialengagement,aswellasthenitty-grittydetailsofbanking,parenting, domesticplanning,andotherquotidianissues(Pearson2000).Someof thosewhoespousethisreorientationarecriticizedassoundinglikethe conservativeswhohavedominatedthefederalpoliticalenvironment foradecadenow,virtuallyunopposed.Sincearoundthemid-1990sin Australia,therulingconservativegovernmenthassoughttoshiftthe emphasisawayfrom“indigenousrights”andculturaldifference,and engagewithindigenouspeopleonabasisofwhatistermed“practical reconciliation”(Grattan2000).Formany,thissoundsuncomfortably likethepolicyrubricof“assimilation”thatpredominatedintothe1960s, beforetheeraof“self-determination”andtheassociatedheightening ofconcernwithdifferenceinwhichculturalistnotionsofAboriginal landedness flourished. Disparities between specific local indigenous priorities,andthoseprioritiesofindigenouspeoplemoredirectlyshaped bywidernationalandinternationalperspectives,isaconstantmatter fornegotiation(andsometimesincomprehension)betweenmembers of local communities, and indigenous and nonindigenous people advisingthemfromorganizationalbasesthathaveafootholdinthe widercircuitryofindigenism. The usual postcolonial paradox remains, that indigenous belonging becomes recognizable by governments only after indigenous expropriation.IndigenousandnonindigenousAustralianscontinueto workthroughthesymbolicandpracticalmeaningsofrelationstoland inwaysthatareshapedbytheglobalizedhistoricalandcontemporary
144
Francesca Merlan
situation of Australia, and not simply interpretable as expression of indigenousinterestsandaims.
Notes 1. Niezen(2003:160–165)discussesthe“BattleoftheS,”thepluralform (“peoples,”“populations”)thatistakentoraisetheissueofself-determination, andisthereforeavoidedininternationalfora. 2. LikeMiller,many(indigenousactivistsandothers)prefertousecolloquial regional designations: besides “Koori,” “Murri” (Queensland), “Nyoongah” (southernWesternAustralia),“Yolngu”(easternArnhemLand),andsoforth, mostofthesenative-languagetermsmeaning“person,man”(andcontrasting with“European,whiteperson”).Thedesignation“TorresStraitIslanders”has cometobeappendedtomanyofficialnamesandtitles(e.g.,the“Australian InstituteofAboriginesandTorresStraitIslanders”),toincludethosewhoseown senseofrelationshiptocontinentalAborigineshasbeen,formanypurposes, one of willful distanciation (distancing), but who indeed (at least until the renowned High Court Mabo, or native title, judgment of 1992) tended to be given a much lower profile in considerations of Australia’s “indigenous peoples.” 3. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, and the Native Title Act (1993) differ in their bases and formulations, but both require a demonstration of relationship in traditionalist terms. The Land Rights Act is a piece of special beneficial legislation, enacted following the negative judgmentinthe1971Yirrkalacasediscussedabove.Framedtomakeclaims possible(butonlywithintheNorthernTerritory),theLandRightsActrequires demonstration of “primary spiritual responsibility” and “common spiritual affiliation”tolandonthepartofa“localdescentgroup”ofAboriginesthat may“forageasofright”overlandandsitesontheland.Anoriginalversion ofthebillintroducedin1974hadallowedgreaterlatitudefor“needs”claims toland;butaftertheremovaloftheWhitlamLaborgovernmentunderwhich theoriginalbillwasformulated,therevisedversionpassedin1976underthe newLiberal–NationalCoalitiongovernmentwasframedinmoreexclusively religiousandtraditionalistterms.Whenin1992theMabocasechangedthe situationofAustralianlandrightswiththefinding,onthebasisofcasematerial fromtheTorresStraitthatisculturallymoreMelanesianthanAustralian,that nativetitlecouldberecognizedatthecommonlaw,theLaborGovernmentin powerhastenedtoformulatefederallegislation.Section23oftheNativeTitle
IndigeneityasRelationalIdentity:TheConstructionofAustralianLandRights 145
Act requires that relationship to land be found to be based on “indigenous lawsandcustoms,”anddemonstrationofcontinuityintherelationship. 4. ATSIC(2003:48)citesthe2001AustralianBureauofStatisticsfigurefor the total Australian indigenous population of 458,520, and attributes the followingnumbersandpercentagesto“remoteness”classesasfollows:major cities 138,494, 30 percent of total indigenous population; inner regional 92,988,20.3percent;outerregional105,875,23.1percent;remote40,161,8.8 percent;veryremote81,002,17.7percent. 5. AllNorthernTerritorypastoralpropertiesareheldasleasehold,ofvariable term and “rolled over” at expiry on demonstration of fulfillment of covenants. 6. Justice Woodward, who presided in the Yirrkala case, when later appointedtoheadacommissionofinquirytoreportonhowlandrightsmightbe deliveredtoAboriginalpeople,observedthattherewaslittleuseinrecognizing claimstolandunlessAboriginalpeoplearealsoprovidedwithfundstomake useofthatland.Suchplainspeakingabout“practicalities”wasnottypicalof publichigh-levelgovernmentpronouncementsfavoringlandrights. 7. SeetheNationalNativeTitleTribunalwebsite(http://www.nntt.gov.au)for numbersanddetailsofdeterminations.AsofJuly24,2006,87determinations oftheexistenceofnativetitlehadbeenmade(60positive,27negative),of hundreds(claimant,nonclaimant,andcompensationapplications)lodged. 8. “Unownedterritory,”thatis,terranullius,isaphrasethathasbeencirculatedascharacterizationofAustraliancolonialpracticebutalsosometimes rejectedincurrentdebateasanachronistic,notthetermsofcolonialunderstandingbutoftoday’sinterpretationofit.
References AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderCommissionReport2002–2003 (ATSIC).2003.Woden:CommonwealthofAustralia. Attwood,B.1988.ThemakingoftheAborigines.Place:Publisher. ——.2003.RightsforAborigines.CrowsNest,NewSouthWales:Allen andUnwin. Baker,R.1999.Landislife:Frombushtotown,thestoryoftheYanyuwa people.Sydney:AllenandUnwin. Barwick,D.1998.RebellionatCoranderrk,editedbyL.BarwickandR. E.Barwick.Canberra:AboriginalHistory. Beckett,J.1988.Thepastinthepresent;thepresentinthepast:ConstructinganationalAboriginality.InPastandpresent:Theconstruction ofAboriginality,editedbyJ.R.Beckett,191–217.Canberra:Aboriginal StudiesPress.
146
Francesca Merlan
Bennett, S. 1989. Aborigines and political power. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Castree,N.2004.Differentialgeographies:Place,indigenousrightsand “local”resources.PoliticalGeography23(2):133–167. Chatwin,B.1987.TheSonglines.London:JonathanCape. Collins,H.1985.PoliticalideologyinAustralia:Thedistinctivenessof aBenthamitesociety.Daedalus114:147–169. Cowlishaw,G.1999.Rednecks,eggheadsandblackfellas:Astudyofracial powerandintimacyinAustralia.Sydney:AllenandUnwin. Cribb,1994.Farewelltotheheartland.AustralianMagazine,February: 11–16. Curthoys, A. 2002. Freedom ride: A freedom rider remembers. Sydney: AllenandUnwin. Dodson,M.1995.Indigenoussocialjustice:AsubmissiontotheParliament oftheCommonwealthofAustraliaonthesocialjusticepackage.Sydney: AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderSocialJusticeCommission. Escobar,A.2001.Culturesitsinplaces.PoliticalGeography20(2):139– 144. Foley,G.2001.BlackpowerinRedfern1968–1972.TheKooriHistory Website.Electronicdocument,http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/essays/ essay_1.html,accessedDecember29,2006. Glaskin, K. 2002. Claiming country: A case study of historical legacy and transition in the Native title context. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, The Australian National University. Goodall, H. 1996. Invasion to embassy: Land in Aboriginal politics in NewSouthWales1770–1972.St.Leonards:AllenandUnwin–Black Books. Grattan,M.,ed.2000.Reconciliation:EssaysonAustralianreconciliation. Melbourne:BookmanPress. Gray,I.,andG.Lawrence2001.AfutureforregionalAustralia:Escaping globalmisfortune.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress. Hacking, I. 1998. On being more literal about construction. In The politicsofconstructionism,editedbyI.VelodyandR.Williams,49–68. London:Sage. Hardy, F. 1968. The unlucky Australians. Melbourne: Thomas Nelson Rigby. Hercus,L.,andP.Sutton,eds.1986.Thisiswhathappened:Historical narrativesbyAborigines.Canberra:AustralianInstituteofAboriginal Studies.
IndigeneityasRelationalIdentity:TheConstructionofAustralianLandRights 147
Hirtz,F.2003.Ittakesmodernmeanstobetraditional:Onrecognizing indigenousculturalcommunitiesinthePhilippines.Developmentand Change34(5):887–914. Holmes,J.1996.Fromcommodityvaluestowardsamenityvaluesin thenorthernfrontier.JournalofAustralianStudies49:97–104. Howard,M.1977.Aboriginalpoliticalchangeinanurbansetting:The NACCelectioninPerth.InAboriginesandchange,editedbyR.M. Berndt,368–83.AtlanticHighlands,NJ:HumanitiesPress. Howson, P. 2005. Aboriginal land rights: The next battle ground. QuadrantMagazine49(6),June.Electronicdocument,http://www. quadrant.org.au,accessedDecember29,2006. Jones,D.,andJ.Hill-Burnett1982.Thepoliticalcontextofethnogenesis:AnAustralianexample.InAboriginalpowerinAustralianSociety, editedbyM.Howard,214–246.St.Lucia:UniversityofQueensland Press. Maddock,K.1991.MetamorphosisofthesacredinAustralia.Australian JournalofAnthropology2(2):213–232. McMichael, P. 1984. Settlers and the agrarian question: Foundations of capitalism in colonial Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Merlan,F.1978.Makingpeoplequietinthepastoralnorth:Reminiscences ofElseyStation.JournalofAboriginalHistory1(2):70–106. ——.1991.Thelimitsofculturalconstructionism:ThecaseofCoronation Hill.Oceania61:341–352. ——.1994.Entitlementandneed:Conceptsunderlyingandinland rightsandnativetitleacts.InClaimstoknowledge,claimstocountry, edited by M. Edmunds, 12–26. Canberra: Australian Institute of AboriginalStudies,NativeTitleUnit. ——.1995.Theregimentationofcustomarypractice:FromNorthern TerritorylandclaimstoMabo.AustralianJournalofAnthropology6: 64–82. ——.1998.Cagingtherainbow:Places,politicsandAboriginesinaNorth AustralianTown.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai`iPress. ——.1999.Attitudinalandstructuralchangeinindigenousandsettler relationstoland.InReconciliation:Voicesfromtheacademy.Occasional PaperSeries2,editedbyL.Manderson,40–48.Canberra:Academy oftheSocialSciencesinAustralia. ——.2005. Indigenous movements in Australia. Annual Reviews in Anthropology34:473–494. Miller,J.1985.Awilltowin:Theheroicresistance,survivalandtriumph ofblackAustralia.London:AngusandRobertson.
148
Francesca Merlan
Morgan,M.2004.Mutantmessagedownunder.10thanniversaryedition. NewYork:HarperCollins. Munn,N.1970.ThetransformationofsubjectsintoobjectsinWalbiri andPitjantjatjaramyth.InAustralianAboriginalanthropology,edited byR.M.Berndt,141–163.Perth:UniversityofWesternAustralia. Nettheim, G., G. D. Meyers, and D. Craig. 2002. Indigenous peoples andgovernancestructures:Acomparativeanalysisoflandandresource managementrights.Canberra:AustralianInstituteofAboriginaland TorresStraitIslanderStudies. Niezen, R. 2000. Recognizing indigenism: Canadian unity and the internationalmovementofindigenouspeoples.ComparativeStudies inSocietyandHistory42(1):119–148. ——.2003. The origins of indigenism: Human rights and the politics of identity.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Pearson,N.2000.Ourrighttotakeresponsibility.Self-Published.Available at:[email protected]. Povinelli,E.1993.Labor’slot:Thepower,history,andcultureofAboriginal action.Chicago:UniversityofChicago. ——.2002.Thecunningofrecognition:Indigenousalteritiesandthemaking ofAustralianmulticulturalism.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress. Roeg,N.,director.1971.Walkabout.100min.ProducedbySiLitvinoff, distributedbyFilmsIncorporated. Rose,D.1984.ThesagaofCaptainCook:MoralityinAboriginaland Europeanlaw.AustralianAboriginalStudies2:24–39. Rowse,T.1987.Wereyoueversavages?Aboriginalinsidersandpastoralists’patronage.Oceania58(2):81–99. ——.1988.MiddleAustraliaandthenoblesavage:Apoliticalromance. InPastandpresent:TheconstructionofAboriginality,editedbyJ.R. Beckett,161–178.Canberra:AboriginalStudiesPress. ——.1998. Aboriginal nomenclature. In The Oxford Companion to AustralianHistory,editedbyG.Davison,J.Hirst,andS.Macintyre, 9–10.Melbourne:OxfordUniversityPress. ——.2000. Obliged to be difficult: Nugget Coombs’ legacy in indigenous affairs.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Sansom,B.1982.TheAboriginalcommonality.InAboriginalsites,rights andresourcedevelopment.FortheAcademyoftheSocialSciencesin Australia, edited by R. M. Berndt, 117–138. Perth: University of WesternAustraliaPress. Spencer,B.,andF.Gillen1927.TheArunta:AstudyofaStoneAgepeople. London:Macmillan.
IndigeneityasRelationalIdentity:TheConstructionofAustralianLandRights 149
Stanner,W.E.H.1958.ContinuityandchangeamongtheAborigines. TheAustralianJournalofScience21(5A):99–109. ——.1965. Religion, totemism and symbolism. In Aboriginal man in Australia: Essays in honours of Emeritus Professor A. P. Elkin, edited by R. M. Berndt and C. H. Berndt, 207–237. Sydney: Angus and Robertson. ——.1968. After the dreaming: Black and white Australians, an anthropologist’sview.Sydney:AustralianBroadcastingCommissionBoyer Lectures. Strehlow,T.G.H.1965.Culture,socialstructureandenvironmentin Aboriginal central Australia. In Aboriginal man in Australia, edited by R. M. Berndt and C. H. Berndt, 121–145. Sydney: Angus and Robertson. ——.1970.GeographyandthetotemiclandscapeincentralAustralia: Afunctionalstudy.InAustralianAboriginalanthropology,editedby R.M.Berndt,92–140.Nedlands:UniversityofWesternAustralia. Tambiah,S.1996.Levellingcrowds:Ethnonationalistconflictsandcollective violenceinSouthAsia.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Tatz,C.1977.Aborigines:Politicaloptionsandstrategies.InAborigines and change: Australia in the 70s, edited by R. M. Berndt, 384–401. AtlanticHighlands,NJ:HumanitiesPress. Thiele, S. 1982. Yugul, an Arnhem Land cattle station. Darwin: North AustraliaResearchUnit. Weir,P.,director.1977.TheLastWave.106min.ProducedbyMcElroy andMcElroyProductions,distributedbyUnitedArtists. Williams,N.1986.TheYolnguandtheirland:Asystemoflandtenureand thefightforitsrecognition.Canberra:AustralianInstituteofAboriginal Studies. Yunupingu,G.,ed.1997.Ourlandisourlife.St.Lucia:Universityof QueenslandPress.
This page intentionally left blank
f i v e
Choctaw Tribal Sovereignty at the Turn of the 21st Century Valerie Lambert
The demand for self-determination has become a universal political theme, ranging from competing tribal entities in postapartheid South Africaandothernationsofthatcontinent,totheMaorisofNewZealand andtheaboriginesofAustralia,andeventotheHawaiianindependence movement.Ineachoftheseinstancesthereisaproclivitytocompare local situations to that of [U.S.] American Indian tribes which have achieved a high degree of economic and political autonomy within a broaderconstitutionalsystem. —Kersey1996
M
anyindigenouspeoplesworldwideindeedseekgreatercontrolof theirownaffairsandthedissolutionofstructuresofdiscriminationandinequality.Manygroups,too,wantthenationalgovernments underwhichtheylivetomorefullyrecognize—orinsomecasessimply toacknowledge—indigenousrightsofself-determination.Whatgives mepauseisthelastpartofKersey’sstatement:hispositivevaluation ofthepoliticalrightsheldbyAmericanIndiantribes,togetherwith thesuggestionthatindigenouspeoplesthroughouttheworldmaybe lookingtotheUnitedStatesasamodelofrespectfornativeautonomy andsovereignty.Iexaminehereaparticularcaseofearly-21st-century Indian tribal experience in the United States, that of the Choctaws. Towardthisend,IanalyzethreerecentconflictsbetweentheChoctaws andnon-Indians.ThefirstinvolvesChoctawtribalexperienceselling motorfuels;thesecondinvolvesthetribe’seffortstoexpandtheirtribal gamingenterprises;andthelastinvolvesaconflictoverwaterinthe 151
152
Valerie Lambert
Choctaws’southeasternOklahomahomeland.Eachoftheseconflicts alsoprovidesinsightintoaspectsoftriballifeandhistory,andreveals aconsiderablylessrosypictureoftheextentofChoctawsovereignty thanmightbeimaginedinanagewhensomeobserverswanttopaint allAmericanIndiantribesasrollingincasinomoneyandunrestricted politicalpower. Beforeexploringtheseconflicts,letmepresentsomematerialthat hassignificantlyshapedmyperspectiveontheissuesaddressedinthis chapter,materialdrawnfrommypersonalexperiencesgrowingupas aChoctawinOklahomaandmyprofessionalexperiencesasacultural anthropologistattheBureauofIndianAffairs(BIA).Duringmyyouth in Oklahoma, then the state with largest Indian population in the United States, I would have been puzzled by the assertion that the UnitedStateshadmadeaspecialaccommodationofourdistinctiveness. BothmypeersandtheadultsaroundmeinOklahomaCity,whereI wasreared,characterizedOklahomaasanundesirableplacetobe,and mentionwasoftenmadeofthereasonthatwewereinthispartofthe UnitedStates:becausethefederalgovernmenthadforciblyrelocated ourtribestowhatisnowOklahomasothatnon-Indianscouldhave ourmorefertilelandintheSoutheast.Ispentmanysummersasachild intheChickasawNation,thetribalnationinwhichmygrandfather, who was of Chickasaw as well as Choctaw ancestry, had taken part of his “allotment” of the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribal estate. The reasonthatmyrelationshadacquiredtheseparcelsofChoctawand Chickasawland,Iwastold,wasbecauseanearly-20th-centuryfederal law had eviscerated the governments of the Five “Civilized” Tribes, which included the Choctaws, and allotted their lands in severalty totribalmembersinanefforttodissolvetheFive“Civilized”Tribes. Duringthelate19thcentury,manyotherU.S.tribesweresubjectto similarlegislation. IhavefondmemoriesofadayinsunnyAugustwhenmysisterand Iwatchedbrowncattlegrazethehillsofmygrandfather’sallotment as we leaned against the fence that bordered a quiet country road. However, the cattle that we watched were not my grandfather’s or evenmyfather’s.Theywerethepropertyofawhiterancherwhohad acquiredourallotment.MysisterandIhadleanedagainstthefence not from within the enclosure but from the roadside. In losing our allotments,myfamilyandIwerenotalone.Thousandsofmembers oftheFive“Civilized”Tribesweredispossessedoftheirallotmentsby non-Indiansasaresultoffederallawsattheturnofthe20thcentury. ForChoctawandChickasawchildren,aswellasformanyotherIndian
ChoctawTribalSovereigntyattheTurnofthe21stCentury 153
childreninOklahoma,thelessonwasclear:thefederalrelationshiphad leftusdispossessed—onalargescale—notjustoncebuttwice.Atthat timetheonlyevidenceIcouldseeofafederalaccommodationofour distinctivenesslayinthefactthattheU.S.governmentpermittedusa chieftohelpmanagethe10,000acresstillundertribalcontrol.When Iwasayoungchildinthelate1960s,weChoctawswereprohibited bylawfromselectingthischief.Atthattimeanduntil1970,theU.S. governmentappointedthechiefsoftheFive“Civilized”Tribes. About15yearsafterIleftOklahomatoattendcollegeandgraduate school,IwasrecruitedtoworkasaculturalanthropologistattheBIA,an agencythatinrecentyearshasbeenstaffedalmostentirelybyIndians.I acceptedthispositioninpartbecauseIwasfascinatedbyfederalIndian policyandthepolicymakingprocesswithrespecttoIndianaffairs.A secondandrelatedfactorwasmystrongdesiretocriticallyexamine whatlieswithinthe“blackbox”thatistheBIA,anagencythathasbeen andcontinuestobeoftremendouspoliticalandsymbolicimportfor Indians.IservedintheBIAcentralofficeinWashington,D.C.,under two Assistant Secretaries of Indian Affairs—Ada Deer, a Menominee Indian social worker and activist who had spearheaded a successful movementtoreinstatehertribeafterithadbeenterminatedbythe federalgovernment,andKevinGover,aPawneeIndianlawyerfrom OklahomawhohadusedhislawdegreeandtheU.S.courtstodefend tribesagainstviolationsoftheirsovereignty.Iwatchedbothofthese IndianleadersstruggleagainstCongress,againstU.S.stategovernments andlessfrequently,againstthen–U.S.PresidentBillClintontotryto fulfillthefederaltrustobligationtowardU.S.tribesandpromotethe sovereigntyandrightstoself-determinationofthethen561federally recognizedIndiantribesintheUnitedStates. DeerandGovertreatedtribalsovereigntyasdidmosttriballeaders of their time—as, among other things, a bundle of inherent rights. They maintained that the United States is obligated by treaties, by theU.S.Constitution,byfederallaw,andbyfederalIndianpolicyto protect federally recognized tribes against encroachments on their sovereignty,protecttribalproperty,providetechnicalassistancetotribal governments,providehealthandeducationalbenefitstotribalmembers, and foster conditions that permit tribes to more fully exercise their sovereignty.Related,theydefendedwhattheydescribedastheinherent rightsofIndiantribestoelecttheirownleaders,determinetheirown memberships,maintaintribalpoliceforces,levytaxes,regulateproperty undertribaljurisdiction,controltheconductoftheirmembersbytribal ordinances,regulatethedomesticrelationsofmembers,andadminister
154
Valerie Lambert
justice.BothDeerandGovermadeitcleartous,theirstaff,thatunder theirwatchthehighestdegreeofrespectwouldbegiventothebundle ofinherentrightsthatcomposetribalsovereigntyandthatstaffwere expectedtothoroughlyunderstandthelegalandpoliticalbasisofthe specialstatusofIndiantribes.ForBIAstaff,themessagewasclear:the UnitedStateshadbeenbuiltonalegalandpoliticalfoundationofthe politicalaccommodationofIndiantribesandtribalsovereignty.Many intheBIAsawthisaccommodationassignificant.Someevensaidthat theysawitasexceedinganythathadexistedanywhereintheworld atanypointintime. Thesometimesarbitrarydistinctionbetweenfederally“recognized” and “unrecognized” tribes framed all of BIA work. At the agency, I wasoneofonlyaboutadozenstaffwhoseprimaryjobresponsibility involvedindividualsandgroupswhoexistedoutsidewhattheBIAcalled its “service population.” As part of the Branch of Acknowledgment andResearch(BAR),nowcalledtheOfficeofFederalAcknowledgment (OFA),Ievaluatedthepetitionsofgroupsseekingfederalrecognition asIndiantribesthroughwhatistermedthefederalacknowledgment process.Theexistenceofthisprocesspointstothefactthatthefederal accommodationoftribesisalmostentirelylimitedtogroupswhom the U.S. government recognizes as Indian tribes, and to individuals whomfederallyrecognizedtribesrecognizeastheirmembersorcitizens. Manymembersoffederallyrecognizedtribesfindthislimitationand boundaryunproblematic,despitethefactthatithelpslegitimizeacontinuedfederalroleindecidingwhoisandisnotIndian.Thissupport ispartlyexplainedbythewidespreadfetishization,beginninginthe late20thcentury,ofthecategory,“federallyrecognizedtribe,”among membersofthetribesthatcurrentlyoccupythiscategory. ThebranchinwhichIworkedwaspartoftheBIAOfficeofTribal GovernmentServices.Partlybecauseofthis,myobligationsincluded someworktodefendthesovereignrightsoffederallyrecognizedtribes. The following examples of small actions that I took illustrate the practicaluseswithintheBIAofasovereigntyrhetoricthatemphasizes thefederalaccommodationofrecognizedtribesandarguesthattheU.S. governmentstrictlyupholdspoliciesofself-determinationandofrespect fortribalsovereigntyandrights.OnedayafterameetingIreturnedto myofficetofindavoicemailmessagefromacallerwhoclaimedthat she was being unfairly denied membership in a tribe whom I knew tobefederallyrecognized.Shesaidthatshelivedonthereservation andthatshemetthetribe’smembershiprequirementsasdefinedin thetribe’sconstitution.Yetthetribeallegedlyhadrefusedtoissueher
ChoctawTribalSovereigntyattheTurnofthe21stCentury 155
atribalmembershipcardandtoldherthatshecouldnotvoteinthe upcomingtribalelection.Thereasonswere“political,”shesaid;she hadbeencampaigningforthechief’sopponent.Thecallerthenasked thattheBIAremindthechiefthattheactofprohibitinganeligible memberfromenrollinginthetribeviolatedthetribe’sconstitution,a documentthatthechiefhadsworntouphold.Insum,sheaskedthat theBIAprovideacheckonthepowerofwhatshedescribedas“that despot.”Inpreparingformyreturnofthisphonecall,Iperusedsome files.Iwassomewhatsurprisedtofindafolderthickwithlettersfrom dozensofotherswhohadmadethesamechargesaboutthischiefand hadalsorequestedBIAintervention.Alongsideeachoftheseletterswere lettersofresponsefrommycolleagues.ThelettersexplainedthatIndian tribesaresovereignandhaveexclusivejurisdictionoverdefiningtheir memberships.TheBIA,theycontinued,cannotandwillnotintervene in the domestic matters of sovereign Indian tribes. To do so would constitute a violation of the sovereignty of tribes and a violation of thelongstandingfederalcommitmenttorespectingtribalsovereignty andpoliticalrights. Anothertime,Ifieldedaphonecallfromanangrynon-Indianwho saidthathehadstoppedforabitetoeatonthereservationofatribe whomIknewtobefederallyrecognized,andforreasonsthathedidnot reveal,thetribalpolicehadforcedhimtoleavethereservation.“Thisis America!”heexclaimed.“They[thetribalpolice]can’tdothat!”Hethen saidthathetoldthetribe’spolicethatassoonashereturnedfromhis trip,hewouldreportthem—“reportthem,”hesaidloudly,“totheU.S. governmentitself!”AsamouthpiecefortheBIAsovereigntyrhetoric, Itoldthecallerthat,yes,thiswastheUnitedStates,acountrywhere there existed a respect for tribal sovereignty and self-determination. Tribesareentitled,byvirtueoftheirsovereignty,toremoveindividuals likehimfromtheirreservationforanyreason. IntheOklahomaofmyyouth,thefederalaccommodationoftribes appearedtobeminimal.Wemighthavelikenedittoasmallwatering hole. At the BIA, the political accommodation of tribes was often seenasample:asresembling,perhaps,anopenpasture.Duringmy youth,itwasoftentakenforgrantedbythosearoundmethatthe UnitedStatesdidnotrespecttribalsovereignty.AttheBIA,federal respectfortribalsovereigntywasoftenassumed,butwassaidtohave beguninthe1960swiththestartofwhatscholarsoftendescribeas the “era of self-determination” of federal Indian policy. As regards this “self-determination era,” an era that continues to the present, manyattheBIAsimplytakeitforgrantedthattheUnitedStateshas
156
Valerie Lambert
becomeagloballeaderonissuesofrespectforindigenousrightsand sovereignty. MyresearchintheChoctawNationbroughttotheforeanon-thegroundexperienceoftribalsovereigntythatdiffersincriticalwaysfrom both of these constructions. As I show, there are three things about Choctaw tribal sovereignty that are not very visible from afar and, thus,mightbemissedby,forexample,indigenousgroupselsewhere in the world seeking information about structural accommodations of the sovereignty and autonomy of U.S. tribes. The first thing that risksbeingoverlookedistheintensityandfrequencywithwhichthe Choctawsexperienceencroachmentsontheirsovereignty.Itisunlikely thateventheBIAormostChoctawcitizensfullyappreciatetheamount ofactionthattheChoctawsanddoubtlessothertribesseeontribal sovereigntybattlegrounds,battlegroundsthat,asBiolsi(2001)points out,areconcentratedatthelocallevel. LessopaquetotheChoctawcitizenrybutperhapsnottotheBIAis asecondfeatureofChoctawsovereigntythatthefollowingdiscussion bringsintorelief:thefactthat,inthecontextoftheseencroachments andthepoliticalmaneuveringsthatfollowthem,thesovereigntyof the Choctaw tribe is less often recognized and respected than it is challenged,grudginglytolerated,orevendismissedaltogether.NonChoctaws often resist Choctaw definitions of certain actions as part ofthetribe’sbundleofinherentrights,forcingthetribetonegotiate and affirm these rights. Through a resulting series of moves and countermoves,Choctawsrepeatedlyinstantiatetheirsovereignty,and animportantaspectoftribalsovereigntyisrevealed—itsidentityasa process of negotiation (Clara Sue Kidwell, personal communication; Cattelino2004). AthirdfeatureofChoctawsovereigntythatispatentinthefollowing discussionisthefactthat,whenstrugglingtolegallydefendthemselves againstencroachmentsontheirsovereignty,theChoctawshavemoreat theirdisposalthanisimpliedbytheanalogyofasmallwateringhole, buttheydonotoftenexperiencetheunbrokenexpansenorthesureand levelfootingthatisimpliedbytheanalogyofanopenpasture.Their experiencemorecloselyresemblesthatoftreadingacrossathawing lakeinthefarnorthattheendofwinter.Thefootingisunsurenot onlybecausetheiceisslipperyand,touseWilkinsandLomawaima’s (2001)analogy,thegroundisuneven,butalsobecausetheiceoften givesway,anditdoessoinunexpectedplacesatunexpectedtimes. Thethawing-lakeanalogyalsocapturestheharshnessandsometimes eventhebrutalityofthepresent-dayChoctawexperienceofdefending theirsovereignty.
ChoctawTribalSovereigntyattheTurnofthe21stCentury 157
* * * TheChoctawtribe,whichnumbersabout175,000,inhabitsahomeland thatspansroughly7.5millionacresinsoutheasternOklahoma.Sincethe implementationoftheallotmentlawsattheturnofthe20thcentury, mostofthisland—landthatistermedtheChoctawNation—hasbeen ownedbynon-Indians,andthevastmajority(perhapsasmuchas90 percent)ofChoctawNationresidentshavebeennon-Choctaws,two featuresthatmaketherelationshipbetweenlandandIndiannessin southeasternOklahomacomplex.Achiefheadsthetribalgovernment’s executivebranchandits6,000tribalemployees.Thetribalgovernment’s legislativebranchconsistsofa12-membertribalcouncil,andthetribal judiciary,ofthreetribaljudges. Twooftheconflictswithnon-Indiansthatarediscussedbelowinvolve tribaleffortstomaintainorexpandtribalbusinesses,andeffortsbythe stateofOklahomatocontrolorlimitthetribe’seconomicdevelopment activities. Since the passage of the Indian Self-Determination and EducationAssistanceActof1975andotherlegislationpromotingthe self-determination and self-governance of U.S. tribes, the Choctaws havepursuedanaggressiveprogramoftribaleconomicdevelopment.Its goalsarethreefold,to(1)stemthefloodofurbanmigrationbycreating morejobsforChoctaws,(2)continuetoexpandtribalprogramsand servicestohelpalleviatehighlevelsofpovertyintheChoctawNation, and(3)reducethetribe’sdependenceonfederalfunding.Choctawtribal businessesnowgenerateseveralhundredmilliondollarsayear,upfrom zeroin1978.Thesebusinessesincludetravelplazas,bingopalaces,a horseracingtrack,manufacturingplants,tribalshoppingcenters,and aresort.Profitsfromtribalbusinessesnowfundasmuchas80percent ofthetribe’sprogramsandservices.Withsomeexceptions,thestate ofOklahomaisprecludedfromregulating,controlling,orexercising evenlimitedjurisdictionovertribalbusinessesandothertribalproperty. Ingeneral,theBIAandfederallawconstruesuchactsasviolationsof tribalsovereignty. * * * Thefirstconflict,whichwasbroughttoaheadin1996,involvedtribal salesofmotorfuelsatmorethanahalf-dozentribaltravelplazasin theChoctawNation.Tribaltravelplazas,whichtheChoctawsbegan buildingin1990,arebasicallylargegasstations.Theirprimaryproduct ismotorfuel,buttheyalsooftenoffersmallrestaurants,convenience stores, designated spaces for “pull-tab” gaming, and smoke shops.
158
Valerie Lambert
Clerks,managers,drivers,electricians,accountants,andmaintenance workershelpstaffthesemegagasstations,eachofwhichhascreated between30and50jobs.Despitethefactthatthesejobsarefewand mostarerelativelylowwage,inmostcasestheirlocalimpacthasbeen important.Povertyandjoblessnesscontinuetobesignificantproblems insoutheasternOklahoma. Inthemid-1990s,Oklahomawasimposinga$0.14pergallontaxon dieselfuelanda$0.17pergallontaxongasoline.Thesetaxesgenerated about$370millionforOklahomainFY1995,abouttenpercentoftotal staterevenues(JohnsonandTurner1998).Motorfuelssoldbytribesare notsubjecttothesetaxesbyvirtueofthesovereignrightoftribesto managetribalpropertyfreefrominterventionorinterferencebystate governments.Duringthelate20thcentury,therapidgrowthoftribal sales of gasoline in Oklahoma prompted the state to challenge this right.Oklahomaclaimedthatitwas“losing”$3.5milliontotribesin uncollectedmotor-fueltaxesandthatnon-Indianownersofgasstations (whoputpressureonthestate)werefacing“unfaircompetition”from tribes(JohnsonandTurner1998).Oklahomagrudginglyacknowledged thattribesmayhavearighttosellmotorfuelsfreefromstatetaxes toIndians,butitclaimedthatthestatehadtherighttoimposethese taxes on sales by tribes to non-Indians. This particular challenge of tribalsovereigntywassufficientlynovelthatacasethatcenteredon thischallenge,OklahomaTaxCommissionv.ChickasawNation([94–771], 515U.S.450,1995),madeittotheU.S.SupremeCourt. BeforetheSupremeCourtissueditsdecision,Choctawcitizensinall partsoftheChoctawNationexpressedconcernabouttheconsequences ofapossiblestatevictory.Ifthestatewontherighttoimposetaxeson tribalsalesofgasolinetonon-Indians,wouldthetribe’stravelplazas generatesufficientprofitsforthetribetomaintainthesebusinesses? Most were aware that the tribe’s ability to offer low fuel prices had providedtherationaleforbuildingtravelplazasandthatthisrationale wouldbeconsiderablyweakenedifthestatewon.Itwassimplybeyond question that the tribe’s travel plazas sold most of their gas to nonIndians. Anotherissuewashowadecisioninfavorofthestatemightbeenforced.Whatmethodmightbeusedtoidentifyspecifictransactions asimmunefromthestatetaxbyvirtueofacustomer’sidentityasa Choctaw? A method of external identification based on phenotype wouldclearlyfailtoidentifyalltheChoctawcustomers.MostChoctaws arephenotypicallyindistinctfromwhites,areflectionofahistoryof extensive intermarriage between Choctaws and whites. As much as
ChoctawTribalSovereigntyattheTurnofthe21stCentury 159
80 percent of all Choctaw tribal members are less than one-quarter Choctaw“byblood.”Itwasclearthateithertravelplazastaffwould havetoaskcustomerswhethertheywereChoctaw,orsignswouldhave tobepostedattravelplazasaskingcustomerstoexposethemselvesas Choctawbeforetheypaidforgas. This,however,raisedadditionalquestions.WouldChoctawcustomers bepermittedtoself-identifyasChoctaw?Or,wouldtheyberequired toshowaChoctawtribalmembershipcard?Self-identificationwould capturethemostcustomersandwouldthereforebeinthetribe’sbest interest.However,sincethepassageofatribalconstitutionin1983that definedeligibilityfortribalmembershiponthebasisoflinealdescentfrom anancestorlistedas“Choctawbyblood”onthe1906Dawes(allotment) Rolls, the Choctaw tribal government has limited the right to vote, holdtribalofficeandreceivetribalbenefitstoenrolledChoctaws.They havealsorefusedtorecognizeanyoneasChoctawwhoisnotenrolled. Self-identification,anoccasionalbasisfordistributingChoctawtribal benefitsbetweenallotmentin1906andthenewconstitutionin1983, hasbeenstrictlydiscontinued,ashascommunityidentification,the primarycriterionforrecognizingindividualsasChoctawfromatleast the1700sthroughallotment.Inthecontextofthepost-1983tribalmember-onlyChoctawpolicyandlaw,theChoctawsinsomeChoctaw NationcommunitieshavedevelopedasecondcategoryofChoctaws,the category,“Choctaw-but-not-enrolled.”Theseindividualsliveinorarein somewayaffiliatedwithChoctaw-Nationcommunities,haveChoctaw ancestry,andareoftenrecognizedbytheircommunitiesasChoctaw; but for various reasons none of their lineal ancestors were listed as “Choctawbyblood”onthe1906DawesRollsand,thus,theyarenot eligibleforChoctawtribalmembership.Becausethe1995motor-fuel taxcasethreatenedtocreateincentivesforthetribalgovernmentto definethecategory,“Choctaw,”morebroadlythanitiscurrentlydoing, itraisedthepossibilityofre-introducingcommunityidentificationor self-identificationasbasesfordefiningthesetofmotor-fueltransactions immunefromstatetaxes. In1995,theU.S.SupremeCourteffectivelyendedtheselocalruminations—at least as they involved the motor-fuels controversy—by ruling that Oklahoma could not impose its motor-fuel tax on tribal businesses,evenifsalesweretonon-Indians.Surprisingly,thisdidnot endtheconflict.Withinonlyafewmonthsoftheruling,Oklahoma rewrote its motor-fuel tax law, effectively at the suggestion of the SupremeCourt.Insteadoflevyingthetaxattheretaillevel(and,thus, on tribal businesses), Oklahoma levied the tax on consumers. By so
160
Valerie Lambert
doing, Oklahoma could legally tax non-Indian customers of tribal businesses,butnotIndiancustomers.Onlyenrolledtribalmembers,not simplyself-orcommunity-identifiedChoctaws,weredeemedimmune fromthesetaxes. Therevisionstothestatetaxcodesenttribesandthestatetothe negotiatingtabletofigureouthow,specifically,toenforcethestate’s righttocollectmotor-fueltaxesfromnon-Indianconsumersoftribal motorfuels.Intheseextensivenegotiations,tribeslostthefighttoforce non-Indianconsumersthemselvestosendthetaxtothestate.Tribes alsolostthefighttoforwardtothestateonlytaxmoniesfromsalesto non-Indians.Intheend,tribesconsentedtothecreationofatwo-step process.First,tribeswouldforwardtothestatethetaxrevenuesfrom alloftheirtribalmotor-fueltransactions,evenonpurchasesmadeby tribalmembers.Then,inlieuofarebateoftaxespaidbyeachtribalmemberconsumer,tribeswouldreceiveapredeterminedpercentage ofthetotaltaxrevenuestheyhadforwardedtothestate.Toreceive thepredeterminedpercentageoftheserevenues,tribeswererequired toenterintoacompact(asigned,writtenagreement)withthestate.If atribechosenottocompact,themembersofthesetribesindividually couldapplytothestateforarebateofthetaxespaid. When the state initiated this challenge to the sovereignty of the Choctawtribe(andotherOklahomatribes),theChoctawsperceived themselvestobeonapartofthethawinglakethatwouldfullysupport theirweight.Astheymadetheirwayacrossthisarea,theyencountered theicywindofanonlypartialandgrudgingrecognitiononthepartof thestateofOklahomaoftheChoctaws’sovereignrighttomanagetheir tribalpropertyfreefromstateinterferenceorintervention.Whenthe SupremeCourtupheldthisright,theChoctawsmusthavefeltthatthey hadsuccessfullymadeitacrossthisslipperypatch.Suddenly,however, theicegaveway.Oklahomafoundawaytoappropriateaportionof revenues generated by some tribal businesses, penetrating a domain thattheChoctawshadtreatedassolelyundertribaljurisdiction.Thus, endedaprocessbywhichtheChoctawshadnotsimplyassertedand defendedtheirsovereigntybutalsonegotiateditinacontextdefined by multiple and overlapping sovereignties (Biolsi 2005; Wilkins and Lomawaima2001). * * * Duringthelate20thand21stcenturies,tribalgaminghasalsobeena contentiousissue.CasinoswerefirstproposedasaChoctaweconomic
ChoctawTribalSovereigntyattheTurnofthe21stCentury 161
developmentoptioninthemid-1980sbythen-ChiefHollisRoberts.The ideawasnodoubtinformedbytheactionsofsomeothertribeswho hadthenonlyrecentlydecidedtousetheirsovereignstatusandtheir immunityfromstatelawtocapitalizeonthenon-Indianappetitefor gamblingbyopeningcasinos.Atthatpoint,itwasnotyetclearthat sometribeswouldbeabletogenerate,astheyhavebeginninginthe late1980s,hundredsofmillionsofdollarsannuallyfromtheircasinos. Inthemid-1980s,mostifnotalltribescorrectlyperceivedtribalgaming asfinanciallyrisky,areputationthat,bythelate1990s,thebusinesshad largelybeenabletoshakedespitethefactthatmanyIndiancasinosfail. Theperceivedfinancialriskinessoftribalgamingwasofconsiderable concerntotheChoctaws,particularlyatthathistoricalmoment.Oneof thetribe’sfeweconomicdevelopmentprojectsatthetime,afiberglass boatfactory,hadjustfailed,andthetribe’sresort,ArrowheadLodge, wasfloundering. Chief Roberts nevertheless pressed forward. He spoke individually withcouncilmembers,grassrootsleadersandotherChoctawcitizensto generatesupportforatribalgamingenterprise.Beforelong,itbecame clearthatRoberts’primaryobstaclewasnoteconomic;itwasreligious. The vast majority of Choctaws are Christian, reflecting a 200-year history of Christian churches and missionaries within the Choctaw homeland.ThechurchhaslongplayedasignificantroleinChoctaw lifeandpolitics.Beforethetribe’srelocationtoOklahoma,churches establishedandpromotedschoolsforthetribe,agoalthatwasstrongly supportedbytriballeaders,andbothmissionariesandchurcheswere among the strongest non-Indian opponents of the tribe’s removal towhatisnowOklahoma(Kidwell1995).WhentheChoctawtribal governmentwaseviscerated,anditscourts,dissolvedasacondition oftheallotmentlegislationattheturnofthe20thcentury,churches steppedintofilltheinstitutionalvoid.Infact,from1906throughthe 1970s,churcheswereprobablythetribe’smostimportantsocialand politicalinstitutions(Faiman-Silva1997;Foster2001). Inthemid-1980s,Choctawpreachersandchurchmembersmobilized againstRoberts’sproposedgamingventure.Gamblingwasobjectionable onmoralgrounds,theysaid;gamblingwasa“sin.”Choctawpreachers argued that the Choctaw tribe was a Christian nation, and as such, thetribeshouldnotonlyrefusetoparticipateingamingbutalsowork topreventthegrowthofgamingonIndianreservationsthroughout thecountry.ThemostvisiblesuchactivistwastheReverendBertram Bobb.ForyearsBobb,aChoctawhimself,hasrunabiblecampinthe ChoctawNationandwrittenaChristiancolumnfortheChoctawtribal
162
Valerie Lambert
newspaperBishinik.Severaltimeshewaselectedtothetribalcouncil. RobertscounteredBobbandthegrowingmovementagainstgaming intheChoctawNationbyarguingthatthetribewasindesperateneed ofincometohelpfundandexpandtribalprogramsandservices.In 1987,twoyearsafterRoberts’sreelectiontoanotherfour-yeartermas chief,Robertssucceededinopeningatribalgamingenterprise.Itwas not a casino but a somewhat less morally objectionable high-stakes bingopalace. The almost overnight success of this 28,000-square-foot facility considerably weakened the opposition to tribal gaming among the Choctawcitizenry.Inonlyitssecondyear,thebingopalace,builtin themidsizedcitythathousestheChoctawtribalheadquarters,made aprofitofmorethan$1million(Faiman-Silva1997).Inaddition,this controversialtribalbusinessprovidedjobsfor140people.Bydecade’s end,thetribalgovernment,withtheconsentofallbutasmallminority oftheChoctawcitizenry,hadbegunexploringwaystoexpandChoctaw gamingoperations.TheChoctawtribalcouncilmadeanofficialtripto ConnecticuttotheMashantucketPequottribe’sFoxwoodsCasino,the largestgrossingcasinointheworld,wheretheytouredthefacilityand metwithcasinopersonnelandtriballeaders.TheMashantucketPequot tribepledgedtohelptheChoctawsbuildacasinooftheirown. The passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) by the U.S. Congress in 1988 forced the Choctaws to place their hopes of building a casino on an indefinite hold. IGRA limits the type of gaminginwhichtribescanengageonthebasisofthegaminglaws ofthestate(s)inwhichtribesarelocated.Italsogivesstateslimited regulatorypowersovertribalgamingoperations.Insodoing,IGRA contradictsthegeneralfederalpolicy—whichisgroundedinfederal law, as well—of prohibiting the involvement of U.S. states in tribal propertymanagement(seeBiolsi2005).UnderIGRA,Indiangaming is divided into three classes, with the highest class being Class III. ClassIIIIndiangamingincludescasinogambling.IGRArequirestribes who operate Class III gaming enterprises to obtain a compact with the government of their state. These agreements set procedures for regulatingtribalgamingoperationsandoftenrequiretribestoshare apercentageoftheirprofitswiththestate.Ingeneral,ifastatedoes notpermitastatewidelotteryandifthecitizensofthestatehavenot specificallyapprovedtribalgaming(through,e.g.,areferendum),the highestlevelofgaminginwhichatribeinthatstatecanengageis ClassIIgaming.ClassIIgamingincludeshigh-stakesbingo,pulltabs, andalimitednumberofelectronicgames.
ChoctawTribalSovereigntyattheTurnofthe21stCentury 163
Facedwiththesenewfederalandstatelimitsontheirsovereignty, limitsthatprohibitedthemfromopeningacasino,inthe1990sand early 2000s the Choctaws expanded their gaming operations by expanding their bingo operations. The tribe built three other bingo palaces.Inaddition,theyfocusedonincreasingthenumberoftheir customers.Theyprovidedfreeroundtripbustransportation(ontribal buses)fromDallas,Texas.Highlightingthefactthatinasinglegame, acustomercouldwin$1million,triballeadersalsopromotedChoctaw bingothroughtheadvertisingmediaofradio,television,billboards,and newspapers.Bytheearly2000s,thetribewasfollowingtheleadofother tribesinOklahoma,mostnotablytheCherokees,byrenamingtheir gamingfacilities“casinos.”Toenhancetheircredibilityascasinos,the businessesformerlyknownasbingopalaceswerestockedwithelectronic gamesmanufacturedtoresembleslotmachines.Asmentionedabove,a limitednumberofelectronicgamesarepermittedunderClassIIIndian gaming. ThestateofOklahomarespondedwithresistancetothegrowthand development of tribal gaming in Oklahoma at the turn of the 21st century,challengingtherightsoftheChoctawsandotherOklahoma tribes to engage in the type of gaming that was going on in these “casinos.”Inthisthestatewasabettedbythestrongfundamentalist ChristianpresenceinOklahoma,themostpotentexpressionofwhichis theOralRobertsheadquartersineasternOklahoma,theareawherethe Five“Civilized”Tribesarelocated.ForyearsthefundamentalistChristian constituencyinOklahomahaskeptaneyeonactionsorientedtoward institutingastatewidelottery;atseveraldifferentpointstheyhaveled thechargetodefeatsuchinitiatives.WellawarethatinOklahomaitis politicallypopulartochallengenotsimplythesovereignrightbutalso themoralrightoftribestooperategamingfacilities,thestateadopteda positionofhostilitytotribalgaming.Intheearly2000s,withhelpfrom the federally housed National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), Oklahomabeganshuttingdownselectedtribalgamingoperations.The tribesoperatingthesefacilities,thestatesaid,werecrossingtheline betweenClassIIandClassIIIgaming,alinethatwassoilldefinedthat certainmachinessoonbecamepopularlyknownas“grey-areagaming devices.” InNovemberof2004,Oklahomatribesdeliveredacounterpunch. Throughanextensivepublic-relationscampaignandwidespreadpolitical mobilization, they helped secure the passage of a referendum, State Question712,thatpermitsOklahomatribestooffercertainClassIII games,includingvideopokerandblackjack.Theprice,however,ishigh:
164
Valerie Lambert
tribesmustshareapercentageoftheirgamingrevenueswithOklahoma andpermitsomestateoversightoftribalgamingoperations. Intheirquesttoestablishandexpandtheirgamingoperations,the Choctawshavebeentreadingacrossathawinglakethathascracked beneaththeirfeetseveraltimes,mostnotablywhenIGRAwaspassed. Sincethattime,thetribehasexperiencedunsurefootingasaresult ofthemobilizationofantigamingconstituenciesandeventssuchas theshutdownbythestateintheearly2000sofcertaintribalgaming establishments.Innegotiatingtheirsovereigntyduringthisconflict,the ChoctawsandotherOklahomatribeshaveexperiencedsomesuccess— reestablishing,forexample,theirrighttooperatecasinos.Thecompacts thatregulatetheseoperations,however,allowacertainlevelofstate involvementintribalaffairsthattriballeaderstendtotreatasanerosion oftribalsovereignty. * * * In 2001, a 27-year conflict over water rights ended with a tentative agreement between the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes, on the one hand,andthestateofOklahoma,ontheotherhand.Formostofthe conflict,ChickasawinvolvementinthisessentiallyChoctaw–Oklahoma conflictwaslimitedtothefactthattheChickasawshaveaone-fourth interestintheChoctawestatebyvirtueofa19th-centuryintertribal treaty.Thefollowingdiscussionoftheactthatprecipitatedthewater conflict,whichwasthebuildingofareservoirintheChoctawNation, and its aftermath, which culminated in the 2001 agreement, help illustrate the fact that non-Indian efforts to dispossess U.S. tribes of theirpropertydidnotendattheturnofthe20thcentury,asisoften assumed.TribesintheUnitedStatescontinuetoexperiencesignificant threatstotheirownershipandcontrolovernaturalresourceswithin theirborders,aswillbeseen,andonoccasion,suchasinthecasedescribedbelow,tribescontinuetoencounterafederalgovernmentthat notsimplyfailstomeetitslegalobligationtoprotecttribalproperty butalsoabetslocalnon-Indianeffortstoappropriatetribalproperty. Thevastmajorityoftribalwater-rightscasesintheUnitedStates,it shouldbepointedout,involvetribalrightstowateroutsideoftribal boundaries.Inthecasedescribedbelow,thewaterthatwasatissuewas limitedtothewaterwithinChoctaw—andasitturnedoutinthefinal agreement,alsoChickasaw—tribalboundaries. AprimarybasisforU.S.recognitionoftribalrightstowaterarethe reservation-creating treaties of the 19th century. For the Choctaws,
ChoctawTribalSovereigntyattheTurnofthe21stCentury 165
thisisspecificallytheTreatyofDancingRabbitCreek,whichin1830 createdanewhomelandforthetribeinwhatisnowOklahoma.Winters v. U.S. (207 U.S. 564, 1908) affirmed that such treaties imply tribal ownershipandcontroloverallthewaterwithintheboundariesdefined inandbythesetreaties.Inaddition,Wintersandsubsequentcaselaw (esp.Arizonav.California[373U.S.546,1963])statedthatifthewater withinatribe’shomelandisinsufficienttoenableatribetodevelop andmaintainavibrant,growingeconomyintheirhomeland—whichis notthecasefortheChoctawsbutisoftenthecasefortribesintheU.S. Southwest—tribesalsohaverightstooff-reservationwatersufficientto serviceall“practicablyirrigableacreage”inthetribe’shomeland.Tribal waterrightssurvivestatehood,anactthatconfersonstatesownership ofallotherwaterwithinstateborders.Tribalwaterrightsalsosurvive the“checkerboarding”ofreservationsandtribalhomelands,apattern of land ownership in which, as a consequence of allotment, nonIndian-ownedlandexistsalongsideIndianortriballandwithintribal boundaries(seeO’Brien1989).In1970,threeoftheFive“Civilized” Tribes,includingtheChoctaws,wonaSupremeCourtcasethatiswater relatedand,thus,hasadirectbearingontheconflictdiscussedbelow. TheSupremeCourtfoundthattheChoctaw,Chickasaw,andCherokee tribes,notthestateofOklahoma,ownedthebedsofacommercially valuableriverthatrunsthroughtheirhomelands.Thestatehadnot gainedownershipofthisnaturalresource,asthestateclaimed,whenit achievedstatehoodin1907;thetribesownedthisresourceonthebasis oftheearly-19th-centurytreatiesthatcreatedtheirhomelands. DespitetheSupremeCourt’saffirmationin1970ofthecontinued existence of treaty-based Choctaw water rights, in 1974 the state of Oklahoma crossed Choctaw tribal boundaries and dug a large hole in the middle of the Choctaw Nation with which to capture what stateofficialsoftendescribedduringmyfieldresearchasthe“excess” waterintheChoctaws’homeland.Locatedinanareathatreceivesan averageannualprecipitationof56inchesinsomeparts(anareathat sitsontheeasternedgeoftheeasternwoodlandsregionoftheUnited States),theChoctawNationiswaterrich.Infact,500billiongallons ofwaterperyearflowoveradamatHugoLakeinthesouthernpart oftheChoctawNationandintotheRedRiver(theriverthatmarks theChoctawNation’ssouthernboundary),wherethewaterbecomes contaminatedbyminerals.Facedwithanimpendingwatershortagein thestate’scapitalcityofOklahomaCitybecauseofexpectedpopulation growth,andprotractedendemicwatershortagesinwesternOklahoma becauseoftheregion’snaturalaridityanditsheavyrelianceonintensive
166
Valerie Lambert
wheat-fieldirrigation,intheearly1970sthestateofOklahomahatched aplantopipeChoctawNationwatertoOklahomaCityandwestern Oklahoma.TheycalledthisplantheWaterConveyanceProject,and thelargeholethattheyhaddugintheChoctawNation,SardisLake Reservoir. TheChoctawsdidnotconsenttothebuildingofSardisLakeReservoir intheirhomeland.Theyalsodidnotconsenttotheseizureoftheir water,atribalresourcethatthestatenodoubtbelievedhadbeensadly underutilizedandunderdevelopedbythetribe.Thefederalgovernment didnotintervenetoprotectthisChoctawpropertyfromitsseizureby thestate.Instead,itbuiltthereservoirforthestateofOklahomaand loanedOklahomamorethan$38millionfortheproject. Constructionofthe13,610-acrereservoirandits14,138-footrolled earthfilldamwascompletedbytheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineersin 1982.TheprojectfloodedtheChoctawNationtownofSardis,asmall farmingandranchingcommunitythatsportedaschool,apostoffice, andagrocerystore.ThistownhadbeencalledBunchTownduringthe 19thcenturywhenitsprimaryinstitutionsincludedtwoblacksmith shops, two grist mills, a saloon, and several churches. Also flooded bythebuildingofthereservoirwerethegravesofatleast20private cemeteries, including a 1,000-year-old burial ground of the Caddo IndianswhohadinhabitedtheareapriortotheChoctaws’relocation inthe1830s.Citingthefederalrightofeminentdomain,intheearly 1980sthefederalgovernmentforciblyrelocatedSardisarearesidents, bothlivinganddead. Lessthanadecadeafterthelakewasfilled,Oklahomastateleaders andlegislatorsdecidedtoscrapthestate’splanforthelakeanddefault onthefederalloan.Statefinancesdidnotpermitthestatetomakethe annual loan payments, the state said, and state legislators had been unabletoreachaconsensusonwhichcommunitieswouldbethefirst toreceiveChoctawwater.ThestatedecidedtosellChoctawwaterto thehighestbidder.TalkswiththeNorthTexasWaterAgency(NTWA), aconsortiumofmunicipalgovernmentsinwater-starvednorthTexas, hadrevealedthattheNTWAwaspreparedtoofferthestateofOklahoma $400millionfortherightsto130milliongallonsofChoctawwater perdayforaperiodof100years.TherightsoftheChoctawstothis waterwereignored. When the idea of building Sardis Lake Reservoir and creating the Water Conveyance Project was conceived in the early 1970s, the Choctawswereillpreparedtodefendtheirwaterrightsandsovereignty. In1906,federalallotmentlegislationhaddissolvedthelegislativeand
ChoctawTribalSovereigntyattheTurnofthe21stCentury 167
judicialbranchesoftheirtribalgovernmentandhadlefttheexecutive branchashellofaninstitution.Perhapsmostsignificantly,from1906 to1970,aswasalludedtoearlier,theChoctawchiefwasappointedby theU.S.government.Partlybecauseofthis,theworkofrebuildingthe tribe’sformalpoliticalinstitutionsdidnotbegininearnestuntilthe late 1970s. By the mid-1990s, extensive rebuilding had taken place, helpingbetterequipthetribetodefendtheirwaterrightsandresist otherencroachmentsontheirsovereigntyandproperty. InAugustof1992,triballeadersinformedtheChoctawcitizenryof thetribe’sintentiontochallengethestate’sassumptionofownership overChoctawwater.ChoctawChiefRoberts,AssistantChiefGregPyle, andSpeakeroftheChoctawTribalCouncilRandleDurantthenbegan layingthegroundworkforthepublicannouncementinlate1997of thetribe’swater-rightsclaim.Theyknewthebattlewouldbebloody. Afterall,“thestate[ofOklahoma]hasbeenusingtribalwatersinceits creation,withoutregardfortribalinterests,”andundertheassumption thatitownsthewater(Helton1998:1000).Choctawleaderstherefore consultedwithtribalattorneys,participatedininformalmeetingswith state officials, prepared materials for distribution to Oklahoma state legislators,andtalkedwiththeNTWAandotherbiddersabouttheidea ofleasingChoctawwater.Theyalsomobilizedsupportforthetribe’s impendingclaimbyeducatingChoctawsaboutthetribe’srights,the illegality of the state’s actions, and the necessity of taking action to defendChoctawwaterrightsandsovereignty.SeveraltimesIobserved ChoctawleaderselectrifycrowdsofChoctawcitizenswiththeirwords aboutthewater. Especiallyafterthepublicannouncementofthetribe’swater-rights claim,triballeaderslaunchedapublicrelationscampaigntomobilize support from non-Choctaws. The tribe began using full-page newspaper ads, door-to-door solicitors and public meetings to promote tribalsovereigntyoverthewaterandtheleasingofChoctawwaterby thetribetotheNTWA.Tribalcontrolofthewater,saidtriballeaders, wouldbring“anunprecedentedeconomicboontotheregion.”The tribe sponsored dinners to which they invited journalists, bankers, andcountycommissioners.TheyalsohiredTommyThomas,aformer legislator, to promote public acceptance of a water lease that would stillleave“plentyofwaterforOklahoma’sneeds”andwouldpermit unprecedentedamountsofcapitaltoflowintotheChoctawNation. On November 14, 2001, a draft agreement was reached between Oklahoma and the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes. At virtually the last minute, it was decided that the water within Chickasaw tribal
168
Valerie Lambert
boundarieswouldalsobeapartoftheagreement.DespitetheChoctaws’ extensivepreparationsforthisbattlewiththestate,theoutcomewas disappointingforbothtribes.TheagreementstatedthatOklahoma, ontheonehand,andtheChoctawandtheChickasawtribes,onthe otherhand,wouldevenlysplittherevenuesfromleasingsoutheastern Oklahomawater.TheChoctawswouldget37.5percent;theChickasaws would get 12.5 percent. All of the state’s share, however, was to be spentoneconomicdevelopmentinsoutheasternOklahoma.Aboardof southeasternOklahomans,withonlylimitedrepresentationonthepart ofthestate,woulddecidehow,specifically,tospendthestate’sshare. Thetribes’failuretogainrecognitionoftheirfulltreaty-basedwater rightsinthisdraftagreementcanbeexplainedbythehistoricfailure ofU.S.stateandfederalgovernmentstohonortreatieswithAmerican Indiantribes.Itcanalsobeexplainedbytherelativeweaknessofthe ChoctawandChickasawtribesrelativetothestate.Animportantfactor inobtainingtribalconsenttothisagreementwasthesenseofurgency thattheleadersofbothofthesetribesfeltabouttheneedtocreatenew jobsandbusinessesintheirhomelands.Thetribesagreedtoworktoward forginganagreementoutsideofcourttomorequicklygainaccessto capitalfromwaterleasing,andtheyagreedtoadealthatensuredthat allsuchcapitalwouldbespentintheirhomelands.Inonesense,then, theagreementrepresentsasmallvictoryforChoctawandChickasaw self-determination.Itis,however,asignificantlossforChoctawand Chickasawtribalsovereignty,aswellasforthehonoringoftreatiesby U.S.federalandstategovernments. By2005,however,thetribesandthestatestillhadnotreachedan agreementwiththeNTWAforleasingthewater.Moreover,thetribes andthestatestillhadnotratified,throughavoteoftheOklahoma statelegislature,thetermsonwhichtheyagreedto“comanage”this resource(seeBiolsi2005).InJuneof2005,Ihadalongconversation withmychief,GregPyle,aboutthisconflictandothermatters.Pyle toldmethattheprincipalcauseoftheimpassewasthattheNTWA hadbeenunwillingtoofferapricethatthestateandthetribesfound acceptable. Especiallyinthelate20thandearly21stcenturies,theUnitedStates has held itself up as a model nation in its respect for the political rightsofminoritypopulationswithinitsbordersanditspromotionof multiculturalism.Itclaimstoprovideasafehavenforitsindigenous peoples,offeringthemampleroomtoexercisetheirsovereignty,pursue theirrightstoself-determination,andachieveahighdegreeofeconomic and political autonomy. However, this state model of the political
ChoctawTribalSovereigntyattheTurnofthe21stCentury 169
accommodationoftribesintheUnitedStates,amodelthathasreceived agreatdealofinternationalattention,cannotitselfaccommodatethe tribalexperiencesdescribedinthischapter.Choctawsanddoubtless othertribesintheUnitedStatescontinuetoexperiencerepeatedassaults on their sovereignty, the imposition of unreasonable constraints on theirpursuitofself-determination,andattemptedandactualseizures oftheirproperty.Indigenouspeopleswouldbestlookelsewhereforan idealforwhichtostrive.
References Biolsi,Thomas.2001.“Deadliestenemies:”Lawandthemakingofrace relations on and off Rosebud Reservation. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress. ——.2005.Imaginedgeographies:Sovereignty,indigenousspace,and AmericanIndianstruggle.AmericanEthnologist32(2):247–259. Cattelino,Jessica.2004.Highstakes:Seminolesovereigntyinthecasino era. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, New York University. Faiman-Silva, Sandra. 1997. Choctaws at the crossroads: The political economyofclassandcultureintheOklahomatimberregion.Lincoln: UniversityofNebraskaPress. Foster,MorrisW.2001.Choctawsocialorganization.InChoctawlanguage andculture:ChataAnumpa,editedbyMarciaHaggandHenryWillis, 250–254.Norman:UniversityofOklahomaPress. Helton,Taiwagi.1998.Indianreservedwaterrightsinthedual-system stateofOklahoma.TulsaLawJournal33:979–1002. Johnson,RichardR.,andAlvinO.Turner.1998.Oklahomaatthecrossroads.Dubuque:Kendall–HuntPublishing. Kersey,HarryA.1996.Anassumptionofsovereignty:Socialandpolitical transformation among the Florida Seminoles, 1953–1979. Lincoln: UniversityofNebraskaPress. Kidwell,ClaraSue.1995.ChoctawandmissionariesinMississippi,1818— 1918.Norman:UniversityofOklahomaPress. O’Brien, Sharon. 1989. American Indian tribal governments. Norman: UniversityofOklahomaPress. Wilkins,DavidE.,andK.TsianinaLomawaima.2001.Unevenground: American Indian sovereignty and federal law. Norman: University of OklahomaPress.
This page intentionally left blank
s i x
Sovereignty’s Betrayals Michael F. Brown
T
heworldwidecampaignforindigenousrightsinvokesfewwords asreverentlyasitdoessovereignty.Evenwhenundeclared—andin manycontextsitmustremainso—sovereigntyistheproverbialelephant intheroomduringglobalforumsonindigeneity.Thosewhousethe termsometimesdisagreeaboutitsmeaningandimplications,butits centralitytothepoliticalagendaofthecontemporaryindigenous-rights movementisindisputable. Onemightexpectthatanthropologists,whoseoccupationalreflexes include skepticism toward received categories, would have brought sovereigntyunderthemicroscope,butexamplesofthiskindofcritical analysisarefew.Themostlikelyexplanationforsuchdiffidenceisthe broadsupportthattheindigenous-rightsmovementenjoyswithinthe profession. It is also the case, as Anna Tsing (this volume) observes, thatindigenousleadersoftenrejectsuggestionsthattheyshoulddefine preciselythemovement’scentralconcepts,includingsovereigntyand indigeneityitself.1Nevertheless,inviewoftheimportanceofindigenous activismontheworldstageandtheacceleratingdiffusionofsovereignty rhetoric to regions where it was previously unknown, we may have arrivedatamomentwhenthenotionofthesovereigntyofindigenous peoples—ofanypeople,forthatmatter—warrantscriticalattention. Inthischapter,Ireviewthehistoryandmultiplemeaningsofsovereignty to highlight some unwelcome effects of its application to indigenous-rightsdebateandtheformulationofrelevantsocialpolicy. Theanalysisisofferedinthespiritofaprovocationorthoughtexercise, undertakennotbecauseIamhostiletoindigenousrightsbutbecause in the main I support them. Indigenous peoples should be as free as other communities to govern themselves, to promote traditional
171
172
Michael F. Brown
languagesandsocialpracticestotheextentthatthesearecompatible withinternationalhuman-rightsnorms,andtoexerciseahighlevelof controlovertheirlandsandnaturalresources.Forme,thequestionis notwhetherindigenouspeoplesmeritredressofgrievancesbutwhether suchredressismostconstructivelyframedinthelanguageofsovereignty. SourcesofinspirationformyapproachincluderecentarticlesbyThomas Biolsi(2005)andTaiaiakeAlfred(2001).Biolsireviewsthecurrentstate ofAmericanIndiancitizenshipandtribalsovereigntytounderscorethe startlingcomplexityofeverydaypoliticalrelationsbetweenIndiansand theU.S.federalgovernment.Thevariegatedpatternoftribalsovereignty and its unusual interweaving with U.S. national sovereignty, Biolsi insists,makeitnecessarytorethinkourideasaboutthestate.Alfred,in contrast,questionsthelegitimacyofsovereigntyitself.Hisargument—a boldandiconoclasticoneforaNativeintellectual—isthatsovereigntyis sofreightedwithWesternassumptionsaboutpowerandsocialcontrol thatitoffersadeeplyflawedroadmapforthereconstitutionofvibrant, authenticNativepolities. Sovereigntyholdsparticularinterestbecauseofitstalismanicstatus withintheindigenous-rightsmovement.Thesanctityoftheterm,and itsutopianconnotations,echootherutopianideologiesthatshaped humanexperienceinthe20thcenturyandthatcontinuetoaffectus today.Utopiashavenotfaredwellinrecentsocialthought.ThehistorianRobertConquest(2000)arguesthatutopianpoliticalprograms— those advancing simple, comprehensive solutions to complex social problems—inevitablygiverisetototalitarianism.Commentatorssuch asDavidHarvey(2000)identifyneoliberaleconomicsasthedominant utopianideologyofthepostsocialistera,anditscoercivestrategiesare almostuniversallydeploredbyanthropologists.YetHarvey,incommon withmanyothers,hesitatestoforsakeutopias.Withoutthem,hesays, welosethesenseofopen-endedpossibilitiesneededtotranscendthe stuntedpoliticalimaginationofourtime.Theviewofutopianideologiesthatinformsthefollowingassessmentofindigenoussovereignty is most compatible with the tragic sensibility championed by Terry Eagleton(2003:186),whocallsonsocialtheoriststoacknowledgethe imperfectionsofsocialactionwithoutabandoningallidealsorhopes. Wheresovereigntyisconcerned,thismeansthatsovereignty’stroublingside—itsdystopianarrogance,itsneedtoclarifylinesofpowerby separatingonepeoplefromanother—mustbefacedsquarelyifweare todrawfromitsomethinguseful.
Sovereignty’sBetrayals 173
GenealogiesofSovereignty Foratermofgreatpoliticalconsequence,sovereigntyhasasurprisingly unstablemeaning.Theobviousetymologicallinkistotheideaof“the sovereign,”aleaderimbuedwithbothsecularandsacredpower.With theriseofthesecularstate,however,sovereigntycametosignifythe autonomyandindependenceofthenation-statevis-à-visothersimilar polities.Sovereignnations,inotherwords,wereseentoenjoyanunrestrictedrighttogoverntheirowninternalaffairs.Statesovereignty was long considered absolute, or nearly so, but in the 20th century the emergence of international law and human-rights protocols has underminedtheabilityofstatestoclaimthatexternalinterventionin theirinternalgovernanceisalwaysimproper.Accordingtothelegal scholarHurstHannum,theissueaboutwhichthereisthemostagreement atthegloballevelisthat“sovereigntyisanattributeofstatehood,and thatonlystatescanbesovereign”(Hannum1996:15). Thelinktostatehoodexplainswhythetermsovereigntyappearsso rarelyinindigenous-rightsdocumentscraftedbytheUnitedNations, UNESCO,andrelatedinstitutions,includingtheDraftDeclarationon theRightsofIndigenousPeoples(1994).TheUNcharterunderlinesthe importanceof“nationalsovereignty,”whichpreventsitfromexplicitly identifying ethnic communities as sovereign nations (Köchler 2001: 137).Assertionofa“righttoethnicsovereignty”forindigenouspeoples oranyothercommunitywouldplacetheUnitedNationsinviolation of its own foundational principles. Hence, the regular use of “selfdetermination”asaproxyforsovereigntyinUNpolicystatements.2 Outside the walls of the United Nations, a desire for sovereignty isvoicedfreelyandoften.RobertB.Porter(2002:101),anAmerican Indianlegalscholar,putsthestrongversionofindigenoussovereignty inthebluntestpossibleterms:“Wemaintaintherighttodowhatever wewantinourownterritorywithoutlimitations.”3Withinindigenousrightsdebate,themeaningofsovereigntyhassteadilybroadenedfrom itsconventionalimplicationstoencompasseveryaspectofindigenous life,includingeducation,language,religion,andtheexpressivearts. Sovereignty is reimagined as a condition of autonomy from other culturesandpoliticalentities—anautonomyinseparablefromahopedforreturntoprimalauthenticity.Assuch,itstandsastheculmination ofaslow,painfulprocessofdecolonizationunderwaythroughoutthe indigenousworld. Suchexpansiveviewsofsovereigntyhavealonghistoryinpolitical philosophy. Although state sovereignty is arguably the dominant
174
Michael F. Brown
expressionoftheconcept,notionsofpopularandevenself-sovereignty can be traced back the foundational works of Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau(seeHoffman1998).Thiscurrentofsovereigntythoughtis oftenantistatistinitsprincipalthrust,insistingthatthestate’scoercive powersandmonopolisticcontrolofforcearefundamentallyatodds withthefreedomofindividualsandcommunitiestocharttheirown politicalcourse. Makinganimpassionedcaseforanexpandednotionofsovereignty that transcends the merely political, Wallace Coffey and Rebecca Tsosie(2001:196)insistthatindigenouspeoplesmustfightforcultural sovereignty,whichservesasabulwarkagainstthe“forcesofmassmedia, theeducationalsystem,andahostofcourtdecisionsfailingtoprotect thereligiousorculturalrightsofNativepeoples.”Forthem,sovereignty isanalmostmysticalstatethatarisesspontaneouslywithinthesocial lifeandtraditionsofapeople.CoffeyandTsosieidentifyrepatriationas adominantthemeforthisindigenousversionofsovereignty—notjust repatriationofreligiousobjectsandhumanremains,buttherecovery oflanguages,religions,andvalues,aswellasapurgingofunwanted influencesoriginatinginnonindigenousculturallife.Inseparablefrom theprojectofrepatriationistheassertionofcontroloverallrepresentationsofindigenouslifeways.Whatdiffusesoutfromanativenation, inotherwords,isasimportanttosovereigntyaswhatdoes,ordoes not, flow in. In a similar vein, but with particular attention to the MaoriofNewZealand/Aotearoa,StephenTurner(2002:75,92)insists thatsovereigntyisexpressedinthe“palpablesilence”ofindigenous NewZealanders,whoseuniqueexperiencescannotandshouldnotbe sharedwithnon-Maori. Thestatusofsovereigntyasanuntouchablearticleoffaithismade equally clear by Andrea Smith, who struggles to reconcile her commitments as a Native feminist with the sometimes negative impact that indigenous sovereignty has had on American Indian women. Smith (2005: 123) notes that decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court (notably,SantaClaraPueblov.Martinez[436U.S.49,69,1978])have affirmed the right of federally recognized Indian nations to exclude frommembershipthechildrenoffemalememberswhomarriedoutside theirtribewhilerecognizingthechildrenofmalemembersinvolvedin similarextratribalunions.Thisgender-baseddiscrimination,welcomed by many as a ratification of the sovereign right of Indian nations to determine their own membership, raises troubling questions for Nativefeminists.Unwillingtojettisonfaithinsovereigntydespitethis betrayaloffeministprinciples,Smithclaimsthatachievementoftrue
Sovereignty’sBetrayals 175
sovereignty would lead to liberation for all peoples, not just Native ones.Sheultimatelyrejectsthepossibilitythatsovereigntyemerged fromandisanorganizingprinciplefortheoppressivesystemsheso vigorouslyresists.4 The last stop on sovereignty’s journey from the political to the metaphysicalisthepowerattributedtoitbypeopleinvolvedinlibertarianpopulismand“commonlaw”resistance,anunstablemovementin whichelementsoffarrightandfarleftmutateandfuse.Idonotwishto implythattheindigenous-rightsmovementhasinspiredorpromoted contemporaryAnglo-Americantheoriesofpopularsovereignty,some ofwhich(e.g.,AryanNationmilitias)areactivelyhostiletononwhite peoples.SuchtheoriesdatetotheFrenchRevolution,ifnotearlier.Atthe sametime,thecentralityofatotalizing,mysticalnotionofsovereignty tobothmovementsishardlycoincidental.Botharisefromthesame Zeitgeist—thefear,forexample,thatlocalvaluesandself-governanceare underassaultbydistantpowerswhostandtobenefitfromacompliant, culturallyuniformpopulace.Botharealsoprofoundlyantimodernist, rejectingmodernity’sdisembeddingofsocialinstitutionsanditsmarked tendencytouniversalizetimeandspace(Giddens1991:20–21).And bothrepudiateliberalcosmopolitanisminfavorofasacralizationof thelocal.
SovereigntyRhetoricintheGlobalIndigenous-Rights Movement AsfarasIhavebeenabletodetermine,theinvocationofsovereignty whendiscussingindigenousrightsfirstaroseinNorthAmerica,particularlyintheUnitedStates,becauseofacentury-longhistoryofformal treaty making between the U.S. government and Indian nations, a processthatwasfarrarerinothercolonizedregionsoftheNewWorld. UntilthepracticeofnegotiatingtreatieswithNorthAmericantribes wasendedin1871,theU.S.governmentofficiallyregardedIndiansas autonomousnationstobedealtwithatthefederalratherthanstate level, and they were not automatically treated as U.S. citizens until 1924.5Thisacknowledgmentofindigenousnationhoodis,however, famouslyconditional.Inmanytreaties,thegovernmentpromisedto defendIndianland,resources,andthegeneralwelfareofIndianpeople, anexpressionofpaternalismknownasthe“federaltrustresponsibility.” AndCongressassiduouslyprotectsits“plenarypower”toredefinethe federalgovernment’slegalrelationshiptoIndiannationsasitseesfit. Althoughthispowerisoccasionallyinvokedbyfederalauthorities(and
176
Michael F. Brown
neverforgottenbyAmericanIndians),amultitudeoflegalprecedents andinstitutionalpracticesmakeitunlikelythatCongresswouldtake theextremestepofvoidingthemanytreatiesthatunderpinrelations betweentheUnitedStatesandNativeAmerica. PracticalacknowledgmentoftribalsovereigntywithinAmericanpoliticallifewasslowincoming.The20thcenturywascharacterizedby aseesawpatternofrisingtribalautonomypunctuatedbyperiodsof federalresistanceandretrenchment.Nevertheless,thelast50yearshave seenanimpressivestrengtheningofindependenttribalgovernanceand aroutinizationofthesocialarrangementsthatgiveitlife,including tribal management of education, public safety, judicial process, and civiladministration.6 Theparticularnotionofindigenoussovereigntythathasariseninthe UnitedStatesandCanada(thelatterinvolvingadifferentadministrative history)hasbroadsignificancebecauseofthepivotalrolethatNative American activists and intellectuals have played in the indigenousrightsmovementworldwide.HoweverdifficulttheexperienceofU.S. andCanadianIndians,theiroverallsituationisbetterthanthatoftheir counterpartsinmostotherpartsoftheworld.Growingnumbershave beenabletopursuehighereducationandprofessionaltraining,and advocatesforindigenousrightsinNorthAmericanowpresenttheir viewsforcefullyincourtroomsandotherpublicarenas. The global reach of U.S. media has insured that Indians are seen almosteverywhereasthearchetypeoftheindigenous.Itishardlysurprising,then,thattheNorthAmericanviewofNativeself-determination has diffused steadily from its historic hearth to other communities that have come to identify themselves as indigenous. The word sovereignty is increasingly deployed in indigenous-rights advocacy inAustralia,NewZealand,and,withreferencetotheSamipopulation, inScandinavia.Ithasbeenslowertogainafootholdinotherpartsof theworld.LatinAmericamaybemostnotable,especiallyconsidering theextraordinaryriseofindigenouspoliticalpowerduringthe1990s. Insomecontexts—Boliviacomesimmediatelytomind—indigenous peoplesrepresentanumericalmajority,makingindigenoussovereignty, assuch,alesssalientissue.Inotherpartsoftheregion,nationalist leadersrepressindigenous-rightsdebatethatevenhintsatsovereignty claims,perhapsbecausestatesarethreatenedbytheprospectoflosing accesstosubsurfaceoilandmineralresources(seeJacksonandWarren 2005). In Southeast Asia, Africa, and India, indigeneity itself is a problematicconceptthat,evenifitcanbeinstitutionalizedinsome politicallyacceptableway,seemsunlikelytoleadtothewidespread
Sovereignty’sBetrayals 177
creationofautonomoushomelandsintheforeseeablefuture(Bowen 2000;Karlsson2003;Kuper2003).
CritiquesofIndigenousSovereignty Politicalscientistshaveprovenlessreluctantthananthropologiststo raisequestionsaboutsovereignty’smoralstanding.Onecriticalstrain comesfromadvocatesofclassicliberalismwhoworrythatsovereignty, aswellasotherexpressionsofculturalseparatism,couldreadilyshield illiberal practices from external scrutiny, especially in such areas as thetreatmentofwomenorreligiousnonconformists.Althoughthis is a valid concern, the evidence that indigenous communities are moregiventoilliberalpracticesthannation-statesisunconvincing.A moreprovocativequestionhasbeenposedbythelegalscholarJeremy Waldron(2003):Whatarethemoralandpoliticalimplicationsofthe role played by the doctrine of “firstness” in the indigenous-rights movement,especiallyclaimstolandalienatedfromindigenouspeoples duringthecolonialera?Waldronwondershowwearetoidentifythe (truly)firstoccupantsofspecificterritoriesandassessthestandingof indigenousgroupswhoacquiredtheirlandsthroughmilitaryconquests thatmaybeasmorallyquestionableasthoseofcolonialists,ornearlyso. Thisquestionbearslessontheissueofsovereigntythanonindigeneity broadlyconstrued.Asweshallsee,however,thecomplexrelationship between land (already possessed or sought through a process of reparations)andindigenousidentityisdeeplyimplicatedinnotions ofsovereignty.7 Othercritiquesfocusontheallegedtacticaldrawbacksofsovereignty rhetoric. Assertions of sovereignty raise the specter of secession and potentially of civil war, thereby alienating members of the majority societywhomightotherwisesympathizewithindigenousdemandswhen theseareframedintheidiomofhumanrights(see,e.g.,Corntasseland Primeau1995).Althoughthereislittlequestionthatlocaloppositionto indigenoussovereigntysometimesevokes“one-nation-for-all”rhetoric (Mackey2005),inmanysettingstheideaofindigenousself-rulehas becomesofamiliarthatmostnonindigenouscitizensacceptit,even ifgrudgingly.Thecountryofferingthehighestlevelofindigenoussovereignty,theUnitedStates,providesscantevidencethatthepolitical autonomyenjoyedbymembersoffederallyrecognizedIndiantribeshas lessenedtheircommitmenttothedefenseofthenation-state.Native Americanshaveamassedanunassailablerecordofdistinguishedservice tothenation’sarmedforces,andtheirpublicceremoniesemphasize
178
Michael F. Brown
thestrengthoftheirdualallegiancetoanIndiannationandtheUnited States(Limerick2005). Thusfar,then,thereislittleevidencethatindigenoussovereigntyfuels secessionisttendencies,althoughhowdemandsforlocalautonomymight playoutinsettingsoffragilenationalunityremainsunclear.Astronger case can be made that indigenous-rights discourse has the unhappy effect of driving apart politically subordinate groups that otherwise mightpresentaunitedfrontagainstpowerfulnationalinterests.Thisis theprincipalpointmadebySangeetaKamat,whohasstudiedtherise ofindigenous-rightspoliticsinMaharashtra,India.Kamatallegesthat anthropology’scurrentinfatuationwithindigenouspeoples—“tribals” intheSouthAsiancontext—stiflescritiquesofneoliberaleconomicsby severingthelinksbetweenindigenouspeoplesandordinarypeasants,all ofwhomaretrappedbythesamesystemofexploitation.“Suchclaims to[indigenous]identityandautonomy,”Kamatsays,“servetoempower individualsonthebasisofbeingdifferentfromothersandconstructa newelitism,butprovidelittleopportunitytobuildsolidarityforanew culturalpolitics.Inthisway,theyhelpcontainthediscontentofthe subalternwhocanrefertoanewromanticizedidentityoftribalthatis placedinanewhierarchywithothersubalterngroups”(2001:44). Perhaps the most trenchant critique of the notion of indigenous sovereigntyisputforwardbytheMohawkpoliticalscientistTaiaiake Alfred,whosearticle“FromSovereigntytoFreedom”(2001;seealso 2005) develops ideas first explored in the work of Vine Deloria Jr., andothers.Alfredarguesthatsovereigntyisaprofoundlyethnocentric conceptpredicatedonEuropeanattitudestowardgovernance,political hierarchy,andthelegitimateusesofpower.Hefindsthesevaluesand practices incompatible with an authentically indigenous politics, whichrejects,amongotherthings,“absoluteauthority,”“coerciveenforcementofdecisions,”andtheseparationofpoliticalrulefromother aspectsofeverydaylife.Tosubscribetoadoctrineofsovereigntyis,in Alfred’sopinion,toevadeamoraldutytodecolonizeindigenouslife. “Sovereigntyitselfimpliesasetofvaluesandobjectivesthatputitin directoppositiontothevaluesandobjectivesfoundinmosttraditional indigenousphilosophies,”heinsists(Alfred2001:27,28).8 The alternative that Alfred sketches is evocative but indistinct. A nonsovereignty-basedsystemoftraditionalgovernancewouldrepudiate coercionandfosterhealthyrelationshipswiththeland.“Indigenous thoughtisoftenbasedonthenotionthatpeople,communities,and the other elements of creation co-exist as equals—human beings as eitherindividualsorcollectivesdonothavespecialpriorityindeciding
Sovereignty’sBetrayals 179
thejusticeofasituation”(Alfred2001:31).Alfredendshisarticleona utopiannote,observingthatpriortotheriseofEuropeancolonialism, indigenouspeopleshad“achievedsovereignty-freeregimesofconscience andjustice”that,ifrevived,couldhelptomaketheworldabetterplace for everyone (2001: 34). Admittedly, Alfred’s conviction that Native peoplearealwaysandeverywhereparagonsofparticipatorydemocracy is hard to square with historically documented cases of indigenous imperialismandsocialstratification.Giventhemodestscaleofmost NativeAmericantribesorbandstoday,however,theymaybeamenable totheretraditionalizedsystemsofgovernancethatAlfredadvocates, althoughmostwould,ashehimselfacknowledges,havetoadaptsuch practicestothechallengeofdealingwithahierarchicalandbureaucratic state.9 Alfred’shopefulvisionofasovereignty-freeworldisechoedinthe workofotherpoliticalscientists,notably,JamesTullyandIrisMarion Young. Young (2000: 253), for instance, makes a case for what she calls“decentereddiversedemocraticfederalism”inspiredbyprecisely theformsofIroquoianself-rulewithwhichTaiaiakeAlfredidentifies. Althoughlocalitiesdowntothehamletlevelwouldenjoyabroadright ofself-determination,theywouldnotpossesssovereigntyinthesense ofbeingclosedtotheopinionsofoutsiderswhocanreasonablyclaim to have a stake in local decisions. This pattern of nested autonomy articulatingwithconsultationathigherlevelswouldbeextendedto theinternationallevel.Stateswouldcedesomeoftheirpowerstoglobal governinginstitutionsandsometolocalities.LikeAlfred,Youngholds thatmassivechangesalongthelinessheproposesareamoralimperative foranyonecommittedtoadvancingthepostcolonialproject.
FromTheorytoPractice Discussionsofindigenoussovereigntyneednotbeconductedatthe leveloftheoryalone:thehighlevelofself-determinationenjoyedby federallyrecognizedtribesintheUnitedStatesoffersampleevidenceof sovereignty’spossibilitiesandperils.Athoroughreviewtheeconomic and political history of Indian nations is beyond the scope of this chapter.Thatsaid,thereislittlequestionthattribalself-governance hasbeenbeneficialtoNativeAmericansoverthepasttwodecades.A studyreleasedearlyin2005byaHarvardthinktankrevealsthatalmost everyindexofeconomicdevelopmentshoweddramaticimprovement in Indian Country during the 1990s. This growth was substantially greaterthanthatoftheU.S.economyasawhole.Indianreservations
180
Michael F. Brown
stilllagfarbehindtherestoftheUnitedStatesinsuchindexesasper capitaincomeandemploymentlevels,butthedisparityisshrinking. Theauthorsofthestudyattributethisimprovementalmostentirelyto thebenefitsoftribalself-determination(TaylorandKalt2005). TheHarvardstudyshowsthattheeconomicpictureforthesubset of Indian nations that run casino operations (currently more than 200) is better still, although the advantage is not as marked if one brackets from consideration the experience of a handful of tribes whohavereapedenormousprofits.Withfewexceptions,gamingis seenbyAmericanIndianleadersandpolicymakersashavinghada positiveimpactontheirnations.Ithasbeenaformidableengineof economicgrowthandraisedtheprofileofNativesovereigntyinthe publicmind. YetamidallthefavorabletalkaboutIndiangamingthereareconspicuouszonesofsilence.Itisdifficult,forinstance,tofindworksin thehumanitiesandsocialsciencesthataskhardquestionsaboutthe moralityofthegamingindustry,asurprisingreticencefordisciplines thatshowlittlereluctancetoassertamoralstancetowardothercorporate enterprisesthatpreyonhumanvulnerability.10Theprevailingattitude inthiscaseisstrictlyutilitarian.Legalizedgamblingisgoingtotake place anyway, the argument goes. We should celebrate because the proceedsbenefitNativeAmericansratherthanDonaldTrump.Gaming tribeshavegenerallydoneagoodjobofredistributingprofitstotheir citizensinwaysthatgenuinelyimprovetheirindividualandcommunal lives,unlikenon-Nativegamingcorporations,whoseactivitiesbenefit only affluent owners or shareholders. Still, to hold that gaming has beenagoodthingforAmericanIndiansisafarcryfromconcluding that,onbalance,itbenefitsthelargersocietyofwhichIndiannations areapart. TheeffectsofNativegamingonsurroundingnon-Nativecommunities are mixed. Non-Native employment in counties with casinos tendstoincrease,mostlybecausereservationsoftenlackalaborforce sufficientlylargetostaffacasinooperation.Accordingtoonerecent study(EvansandTopoleski2002:48),however,thisbenefitisrealized atthecostof“atenpercentincreaseinbankruptcies,autotheftand larcenyrates,plusviolentcrimefourormoreyearsafteracasinoopens inacounty.”Inbroaderterms,legalizedgambling,whoeverconductsit, isinseparablefromtheslow-motiondemolitionofprogressivetaxation policies and the U.S. social safety net. Gaming revenues are drawn disproportionatelyfromlow-incomecitizensand(asthetiredjokegoes) thosewhofailedmathinhighschool.Oneneednotbeacard-carrying
Sovereignty’sBetrayals 181
memberoftheTraditionalValuesCoalition,inotherwords,toregard thedramaticexpansionofthegamingindustrywithadegreeofmoral ambivalence,regardlessofwhetheritismanagedbyIndiannations, privatecorporations,orstatelotterysystems. EvenifoneisconvincedthatlegalizedgamblingisaFaustianbargain worth making, the cash flowing into gaming tribes has given their sovereigntyanewrobustnessthatinclinesIndiannationstoimplement policiespreviouslyunfamiliartothem.Someoftheseareadmirable—for instance, the impressive donations that wealthy tribes made to the NationalMuseumoftheAmericanIndianandtheireffortstodirect financialsupporttolessfortunatetribes.Othersaredisquieting: Assovereignnations,Indiantribesregardthemselvesasexempt fromfederalandstatelawsthatpermitlaborunionstoorganizein tribalbusinesses.AfteraCaliforniatribeblockedaunion’seffort toorganizecasinoemployees,theNationalLaborRelationsBoard (NLRB) intervened on the union’s behalf. The NLRB decision, whichiscertaintobechallengedinfederalcourt,promptedthe newspaperIndianCountryToday(2004)toinsistinaneditorialthat “thisisnotaquestionoftribesbeinganti-union,orevenmore pertinently,anti-worker.Inprinciple,itisaquestionoftribalsovereignty.”Givenpriorfederalcourtdecisions,itislikelythattribes willretainthepowertoclosetheirbusinessestounionorganizers andtodismissworkerswhodemonstratepro-unionsympathies.11 Thesovereigntydoctrinealsoputstribalbusinessesbeyondthe reachofstateorfederalworker-compensationlaws.InCalifornia, gamingtribeshaveapparentlyagreedtomeetstatewideworkercompensationstandards,butassovereignnationsthetribesare responsibleforpolicingtheirowncompliance,asignificantconflict of interest in view of the financial stakes. The lack of external oversight has given rise to credible accusations that prevailing standardsareroutinelyignoredwhenworkers(especiallyMexican immigrants in the tribal workforce) suffer work-related injuries (Millman2002:A1). Many Indian gaming operations have been financed by non- Nativeinvestors,whoprovidebackingfortheacquisitionofland (aprocessknownas“reservationshopping”),helpeffectitstransformationfromprivatepropertytotruststatus,andselllucrative management services that may continue on a consulting basis longafterthetransitiontolocalcontrolrequiredbytheIndian GamingRegulatoryAct.Oneofthesefirms,ownedbyacontroversial
182
Michael F. Brown
South African entrepreneur, also managed similar operations in several tribal homelands in Southern Africa. Because disclosure requirements are routinely ignored, the true scale of consulting contractswithoutside(i.e.,non-Native)investorsandmanagement firmsisnotamatterofpublicrecord(Perry2006:125–126;Time Magazine2002). ConversiontotruststatusoflandsacquiredforNativeAmerican businessoperationsfreesthesefirmsfromburdensomestateandlocal environmentalprotectioncodes.Thishasledalanddevelopment firm to propose donating its property in Anne Arundel County, Maryland,totheDelawareNationofOklahoma,thetribe’sgoal beingtosecureconversionofthelandtotruststatusandthento receiveroyaltiesfromthedeveloper’slandfilloperationonthesite (Davenport2004).(AsIwrite,theissuehasstillnotbeenresolved.) To my knowledge, the Delawares have made no claim that this transactionwouldrestoretothemtriballandslostlongago.Itis strictlyabusinessarrangementinaplacelocatedhundredsofmiles fromtheirreservation. Thedoctrineoftribalsovereigntyexemptstribesfromstatecampaignfinance laws that limit contributions to political candidates and stipulatepublicdisclosureofsuchcontributionswhentheyoccur. Italsoinvitesinfluencepeddlingofthesortthatcametopublic attentionbeginningin2004,whenitwasrevealedthatWashington lobbyistswithclosetiestotheRepublicanpartyhadreceivedpaymentsexceeding$66millionfromahalf-dozenIndiantribesfor lobbyingservicesthatinsomecaseswereneveractuallyprovided (CommitteeonIndianAffairs2006). Itmightbearguedthattheseproblemstelluslessaboutsovereignty thanaboutmorallyflawedleadership,whichcanafflictanycommunity.12 Thereissometruthtothis,yetitisimpossibletoignoretheextent towhichtheimplacablelogicofsovereigntypromptsdecisionsand policiesthatfavorone’sowncitizensattheexpenseofothers.Indeed,ifI wereservingasanelectedofficialofafederallyrecognizedtribe,charged with the responsibility to make decisions that primarily or perhaps evenexclusivelybenefitmembersofmynation,Imightbeguiltyof malfeasanceifIpursuedanypolicyotherthanopposingunionization, denyingnon-Nativeworkersadequatecompensationforinjury,andso on.Thisissovereignty’spoweranditstragicflaw. Sovereigntyofthemicronationalvarietyisclearlyimplicatedinthe riseofminimallyregulatedpoliticalspacesthatareimmenselyuseful
Sovereignty’sBetrayals 183
toglobalcapital.Theblandishmentsofwellfinancedcorporationsmay beirresistibletoimpoverishedNativenationswithnootherobvious sourceofincomefortheprovisionofbasiccommunityneeds,asituation illustratedbythecourtshipoftheGoshutesofUtahbyaconsortium ofutilitycompaniesinterestedinfindingapermanentrestingplace for tons of highly radioactive waste from U.S. nuclear power plants (Fahys2002;Johnson2005).Asisfrequentlyobserved,inaglobalized economyoneunderregulatednation’ssuccessinmanufacturingand resourceextractiontendstopushothersinthesamedirectionaspart ofa“geo-spatialracetothebottom”(Perry2006:126)involvingthe abandonmentofburdensomeenvironmentalregulations,accounting rules,andworkerbenefits.Thereisnoreasontoexpectthatindigenous nationswouldbeworseinthisrespectthannation-states;neitheris therecausetobelievethattheywouldbebetter,especiallyconsidering theiroftenstarkeconomiccircumstances.Roguemicronationslocatedin settingscharacterizedbyaweaklydevelopedcivilsocietyandatradition of political corruption offer the prospect of becoming to commerce andresourceextractionwhatLiberianregistryistotheglobalshipping industryandtheCaymanIslandsaretointernationalbanking.Observers suchasRichardWarrenPerrycontendthateveninNorthAmericathe “irruption of spectral sovereignties” is bringing on “new privatized and market-rationalized spatial regimes of enclosure and exclusion” (2006:125,127)thatremaindisquietingevenifweacknowledgethe economicbenefitstheyhavebroughttotheindigenouscommunities participatinginthem. Anotherbundleofproblemsthathavearisenduringthepasttwo decadesconcernssovereignty’simpactonrelationsamongindigenous peoples.Therhetoricandpracticeofsovereigntydriveawedgebetween landed and landless indigenous peoples. Appeals to the notion of sovereigntymakelittlesensewithoutland,whichhelpstoexplainwhy alinkbetweenindigenouspeoplesandlandhasemerged,atleastin someinternationalvenues,asthesinequanonofindigenousidentity. Butwiththousandsofindigenouspeoplelivinginethnicallymixed ruralregionsandurbancentersinLatinAmerica,Africa,andAsia,it ishardtoseehowthestruggleforindigenousrightsisadvancedby emphasizingamonolithicvisionofindigenousterritorialsovereignty thatislikelytoremainunattainableformany. Asnotedearlier,advocatesforindigenousrightsoftenappealtothe principleofculturalsovereigntywhendiscussingproblemsoccasioned byunwantedflowsofinformationandartisticproductionsbetween indigenous societies and the wider world. In this arena, indigenous
184
Michael F. Brown
leadersincreasinglyspeakthesamelanguageasnation-states,manyof whombacktheeffortsofUNESCOtopromoteinternationalconventions thatvalidatetherightofstatestocontrolimportationofaliencultural products,includingfilms,recordedmusic,andtelevisionprogramming, intheinterestof“protectingculturalheritage.” Thesediscussionsaddresslegitimateproblemscreatedbythegrowing powerofglobalmassmediaandthepredatoryInformationEconomy (Brown2005;Watkins2005).Nevertheless,sovereigntylogicleadsdown ablindalleywhendirectedtomattersofintellectualproperty.Wasthere everatimeinhumanhistorywhenpeoplesenjoyed“sovereign”control oftheirlanguages,biologicalknowledge,orformsofartisticexpression? Ifindnoevidencetosuggestit.Themetaphorofsovereigntyimplies thateachculture’sheritageissuigeneris:unique,bounded,andsubjecttoconsciouscontrol,noneofwhichistrue.Alogicofsovereignty rootedinthe17th-centuryTreatyofWestphaliasimplyisnotuptothe taskofdealingwithproblemsarisingfromtheexploitativepotential ofglobalinformationnetworks.Eventhemostmuscularsovereignof themoment,theUnitedStates,struggleswithlimitedsuccesstodefend itsintellectualpropertyresourcesfromlarge-scaleindustrialpiracyin China,Pakistan,Indonesia,andelsewhere,suggestingthatsovereignty provideslittlepurchaseinthissituation. Anexampleinspiredbyrecenteventsillustratestheproblem.When indigenousleadersorindigenous-rightsadvocacygroupsdenouncean allegedinstanceofbiopiracy,astheydidwhentheICBG-Mayaproject wasstillunderwayinChiapaspriorto2001(Brown2003:114–125), they typically argue that the indigenous groups being studied have sovereignrightsofcontrolovertraditionalethnobotanicalknowledge. But one group or community alone rarely harbors this knowledge. It is likely that neighboring communities, indigenous or otherwise, also possess this information if they have occupied a biogeographic regionlongenough.Ifanyoneofthesepeoplesdecidestosharethe knowledgewithoutsiders,theyviolatethe“sovereign”rightsoftheir neighbors. Yet declaring an indefinite moratorium on all forms of bioprospecting(andincreasingly,anykindofresearchthatevenvaguely resemblesbioprospecting),assomeactivistsinsist,deniesindigenous communitiesbadlyneededrevenuestheymighthaveearnedhadthey abandonedsovereigntydiscourse,withitsmisguidedassumptionsof absolutepossessionandcontrol,infavorofmoreflexibleapproaches totheprotectionoftheireconomicandmoralrightsincommercially valuableinformation.
Sovereignty’sBetrayals 185
AfterSovereignty The political scientist Anthony Burke has condemned sovereignty asa“complexandmalignarticulationoflaw,power,possibilityand force,” possessed of a “suffocating ontology” (Burke 2002: para. 6). Burke’slanguagemaybeexcessive,butlikeTaiaiakeAlfredhevoices theconvictionthatsovereigntyistooburdenedwithconnotationsof arbitrarypower,unrealizableambitions,andtherelentlesspolicingof boundariestohelpusimagineaworldinwhichindigenouscommunities balancetheircollectivesenseofpurposewiththelegitimateneedsand concernsoftheirneighbors.Admittedly,thisleavesAmericanIndians inanawkwardposition.Theirpoliticalrealityhasbeendefinedbythe historyoftreatymaking,aquintessentialexpressionofthepragmatics of sovereignty played out in a colonial North America reshaped by Europeanideologiesandexpressionsofpower.Fornow,thisisthelogic by which American Indian aspirations are framed. American Indian sovereignty,likeallinstitutions,isnotacreationofthegodsbutof humankind,afflictedbyhumanlimitationsandreshapedthroughtime byindividualchoicesandtheLawofUnintendedConsequences. Lesscleariswhetherthosewhosupportindigenousaspirationsshould encouragetheviralspreadoftheidiomofsovereigntytonewsettings inwhichtheappropriatenessofitsapplicationisatbestquestionable— partsofLatinAmerica,say,whereNativepeopleandothersofmixed heritagelivesidebysideorregionsinAfricawheredeephistoriesof migrationandethnogenesismakeitdifficulttodistinguishbetween “original”inhabitantsandmorerecentarrivals(Nyamnjohthisvolume). Arejoinderisthat“modular”modelsofsovereignty(Biolsi2005:245) arebutonefacetofsovereignty’skaleidoscopicsignificance.13Aswehave seen,thetermisalsodeployedasshorthandforthecollectivefreedom ofonegrouptoliveunconstrainedbythehistories,values,andpowerof others.Completesovereigntyisobviouslyanunattainableideal,buta casecanbemadethatitprovidesatacticallyusefulgoalforindigenous peoplestoforegroundwhencommunicatingtheirpoliticaldemands, providedthattheycanresistthetendencytoinvestitwithtranscendent moralsignificance.Nevertheless,canaconceptsoburdenedbyhistory sheditsdarklegacy?Onashrinkingplanet,isanygoodpurposeserved bypretendingthatonepeoplecanstandalonefromothers?Thereare manyreasonstothinknot. If not sovereignty, then what? “Self-determination” is the current alternativeofchoice.Ithasobviousvirtues.Itemphasizesagroup’sdesire tomanageitsownaffairsandselectivelyperpetuateitsowntraditions.
186
Michael F. Brown
Yetincommonwithsovereignty,itimpliesthatanypeopleiscapableof “determining”itselfindependentofothers,adubiousassumptioninan interconnectedworld.Itslidestooeasilyintothelanguageofcultural purificationandforcedsortingalongethniclines.14Anotherplausible candidate,JamesClifford’s“articulationtheory”(2001),offersintriguing suppleness,readilyaccommodatingthecontingenciesofplaceandof history.Butitmaybetoodemandingandsubtleforreadyapplication inthepolicyworld.Othersinsistthatapproachesfocusingoncultural rightsaresuperiortosovereigntyrhetoricbecausetheyemphasizethe immediateneedsofindigenouspeopleswithoutdirectlychallenging theterritorialintegrityofnation-states(RobbinsandStamatopoulou 2004). Still others propose rehabilitating sovereignty by recasting it inreciprocaltermsthatrepudiatetheconcept’slegacyofhierarchical control(Hoffman1998:96–107). Whatever approach emerges as an alternative to sovereignty in indigenous-rightsdiscourse,tobeconvincingitmustadvancearguments in support of self-governance, freedom of religion, and the right to benefitdirectlyfromtheuseoflocalculturalornaturalresources.Itmust alsobeflexibleenoughtoaccommodatecertainrealitiesofindigenous life that are widely recognized but rarely articulated: that countless individuals of indigenous descent live far from the lands that their ancestorscalledhome;thattheirfamilylinesarelikelytobeintertwined with those of nonindigenous populations; and that, in the context of many developing countries, their legitimate economic and social needsmustbeweighedagainstthoseofthousandsofnonindigenous peoplewhomaybejustaspoorandpoliticallymarginalized,ornearly so.Tolosesightofthewidercontextistofallvictimtosovereignty’s seductionsyetagain.
Afterword Mostscholars,Iexpect,experiencemomentswhentheyfearthattheir workhassunktothelevelofawordgame,aworryingofsubtledifferencesthatcountforlittleintheturbulenceofhumanaffairs.Writing about sovereignty’s betrayals has prompted me to wonder whether I have not fallen into this trap. Against the limits of words I weigh thepromiseofthelocallycontrolledNavajoschoolswhereItaught duringthesummersofmyundergraduateyearsorthesenseofoptimism affordedbylargelandconcessionsgivenbythePeruviangovernment toafewluckycommunitiesofAguarunaIndians,withwhomIlived in the Alto Río Mayo in the 1970s. In both situations there was a
Sovereignty’sBetrayals 187
palpablesenseofhopeandpride—complicated,ofcourse,byinternal strifeandexternalmeddling.Indigenouspeoplewerepleasedtobein chargeofsomeimportantaspectoftheirlives,andtheystruggledto acquiretheskillsthatwouldallowthemtosucceedontheirownterms despitealegacyofoutsidecontrolbypaternalisticcolonialstates.When indigenouspeoplespeakofsovereignty,theword’smeaningisshaped bycontextandbytheaspirationsofparticularcommunities.Centuries ofconfrontationhavegivenNativeleadersanadvancededucationin thefineartofnegotiation,andmostrecognizethatabsolutesovereignty ofthesortclaimedbynation-states(andrarelyachievedinpractice)is neitherimminentnordesirable.Someindigenouspeoplemayembrace visionsofsovereigntythat,asJessicaCattelino(2006:723)putsit,are “based on interdependency, in which the multiple governments of reservation,tribalnation,andsettlerstateexistintensionandmutual constitution.” Nevertheless, powerful words shape habits of mind. Inextricablytiedtonotionsofsovereigntyisaclearboundarybetween us and them. Sovereignty sets the terms by which this boundary is enactedineverydaylife.Insomesituationsadoctrineofsovereignty mayclarifyrelationshipsinusefulways.Appliedtothemoreambiguouscircumstancesofindigenousidentityinothersettings,however, sovereigntybecomesamandatetoexclude,awarranttoindulgethe narcissismofsmalldifferences,andalicensetoadvanceonepeople’s goalsattheexpenseofanother’s.Ifthetermisusedatall,itshould bedeployedwithawarenessofthepathologieslyingjustbeneathits glitteringsurface. Theglobalmovementforindigenousrightstodaypresentsanthropologywithknottydilemmas.Mustweacceptorperhapsevenpromote thetransferofresearchrecords—fieldnotes,audiotapes,photographs—to theindigenouscommunitiesthatnowclaimthemasculturalproperty? Shouldweholdourtongueswhenadvocatesforindigenousrightstraffic inessentialistideologies?Towhatextent,ifany,shouldourpolitical commitmentstrumpintellectualdetachmentandimpartiality?How dowemaintainthedoublevisionthatallowsustoseesimultaneously thebenefitsthatcertainpoliciesbringtoNativecommunitiesandthe harmthesesamepoliciesmayvisitonothers? When perplexed by these difficulties, I find consolation in Max Weber’s 1918 meditation on the emotional and moral demands of scholarlylife,“ScienceasaVocation.”Anthropologyandsociologymay seemlesslikesciencestodaythaninWeber’stime,andhismasculinist languagehasnotagedwell.Butwearenolessobligedtocommunicate “inconvenientfacts”(Weber1958[1918]:147)thanwerethethinkers
188
Michael F. Brown
ofWeber’sera,nolesscalledtodisenchanttheworld.Andintheworld of indigenous affairs, few words remain as resolutely enchanted as sovereignty.
Notes Acknowledgments. This chapter benefited from the comments of other participantsinthe“IndigenousExperienceToday”symposiumattheVillaLuppis. I am especially grateful to the organizers, Marisol de la Cadena and Orin Starn, and to the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, for bringing all of us together around a single table. Earlier versions of the chapterreceivedcriticalreadingsbyThomasBiolsi,MollyH.Mullin,andGary Wheeler,aswellasaanonymousreviewer.Mythanksinnowayimplythat thesecolleaguesagreewithmyanalysis,andallerrorsoffactorinterpretation aremyown. 1. TheSenecalegalscholarRobertB.Porter(2002:101)illustratesTsing’s pointwhenhe“rejectsthenotionthatthereissomeuniversaldefinitionof indigenousnationalsovereigntythatappliesacrossindigenous,colonial,and internationalperspectives.” 2. ThecirculationofaUNsubcommitteereportentitledIndigenousPeoples’ PermanentSovereigntyoverNaturalResources(Daes2004)suggeststhatthereluctancetotalkaboutindigenousrightsintermsofsovereigntymaybechanging evenininternationalorganizations. 3. Inarecentreviewarticle,LesField(2003:448)observesthattherangeof concernsbroughttogetherundertherubricofsovereigntyisexpandingrapidly amongindigenousactivists.Healsonotesthatindigenouscommitmenttothe ideaofsovereigntyseemstobeintensifyingevenasnation-statesovereignty hasbecomemoreprecarious. 4. Inthecontextofwomen’srights,thelegalscholarMadhaviSunderhas describedculture(andreligiouselementsofcultureinparticular)asthe“New Sovereignty”becauseofwhatsheseesasagrowinginclinationtoclaimthatit mustbeinsulatedfromlawandtheglobaldiscourseofhumanrights.Indeed, Sunder(2003:1409)observesan“increasinguseoflawtoprotectandpreserve culturalstasisandhierarchyagainstthechallengestoculturalandreligious authorityemergingontheground.” 5. RobertPorter(1999)haslabeledthe1924assignmentofAmericancitizenshiptoAmericanIndiansa“genocidal”actbecauseitunderminedindigenous
Sovereignty’sBetrayals 189
sovereignty,theframeworkofAmericanIndiansocialidentity.Suchlanguage says a great deal about how the concept of sovereignty can colonize the imaginationofaNativethinker. 6. Foralessoptimisticviewoftherecenttrajectoryoftribalsovereignty, see McSloy 2003, Wilkins and Richotte 2003, and Lambert, this volume. ThosewhoperceiveAmericanIndiansovereigntyasimperiledpointtorecent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court that limit tribes’ power, although it maybetooearlytosaywhetherthisisadurabletrendormerelyoneofthe cyclical reversals noted earlier. Without disputing the significance of recent legal decisions, I would argue that the perception that sovereignty is under siegearisesbecauseIndiannationsnowincreasinglyexerciseelementsofselfdetermination rarely tested in the past, thus provoking new conflicts with localgovernments.Tosomeextentthisissuehasaglass-half-full–glass-halfemptyquality. 7. WaldronbrieflydiscussesthehistoryofNewZealand’sChathamIslands (Rehoku),whichwereinvadedin1835bytwoMaorigroups,NgatiTamaand NgatiMutunga.Theislands’nativeinhabitants,theMoriori,apeacefulpeople poorlyversedintheartsofwar,werekilledorenslavedbytheMaorioccupiers, reducingtheirpopulationfrom1600to200inageneration.Oneoftheissues underadjudicationbytheWaitangiTribunalwasthepercentageofRehoku thatshouldbeseenasbelongingtosurvivingMorioriratherthantothemore numerousMaori. 8. SeealsoBurke2002andClifford(2001:482)forreflectionsonthepolitical risks of the sovereignty doctrine or, in Clifford’s words, an “absolutist indigenism”inwhich“eachdistinct‘people’strivestooccupyanoriginalbit ofground.”SpeakingspecificallyofAmericanIndiantribalsovereignty,Fergus Bordewich(1996:328)questionsthe“ideologyofsovereignty[that]seemsto presume that racial separateness is a positive good, as if Indian bloodlines, economies,andhistorieswerenotalreadyinextricablyenmeshedwiththose ofwhite,Hispanic,black,andAsianAmericans.” 9. CriticsofNativeAmericansovereigntyarguethatthesmallsizeofmany Indiantribesorbandsmilitatesagainstmeaningfulnationhoodbecausethe communities cannot provide public services associated with complete selfdetermination.See,forexample,Flanagan2000:95–99. 10. JamesV.Fenelon(2000),aNativesociologist,offersanuancedassessment of the social divisions that gaming has exacerbated on several reservations, usuallybetween“traditional”and“progressive”factions,buthehaslittleto sayaboutwhethercorporate-scalegamblingoperationsarecompatiblewith traditionalindigenousvalues. 11. Native American arguments against unionization of tribal workforces note the dependence of Indian communities on services funded by tribal
190
Michael F. Brown
enterprises,usuallyinlieuoftaxes.Astrikecouldjeopardizetheoperationof thesebusinesses—anargument,ofcourse,thatcanbemadebymanagement anywhere,includingthenation’smunicipalgovernments.Fromtheperspective of tribal governments, says Indian Country Today (2004), “the prospect of incorporatingsuchapotentiallycripplingelementasaunion(orunions)is mostthreatening.”ForastudyofthesuccessfulunionizationofNavajohealth workersintheNavajoNation,seeKamper2006. 12. Anexampleofabuseattributablelargelytomoralfrailtyisthepractice ofrevokingthetribalmembershipofindividualsandfamiliestosettlepersonal grudges and increase per capita distributions to remaining members. For a descriptionofhowthisprocesshasaffectedIndiannationsinCalifornia,see Beiser2006. 13. Biolsi(2005:245)observesthat“themodularmodelisverymuchthe visionandgoaloftribaladvocates”intheNorthAmericancontext. 14. Self-determinationmayinvitesolutionsasproblematicasthecircumstancesitclaimstorectify.Astrikingexample,drawnfromtheproceedingsof aninternationalconferenceontherighttoself-determinationheldinGeneva in 2000, is the proposal of a group called the Republic of New Afrika that the United States make reparations to the descendants of slaves by, among other things, ceding the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, andSouthCarolinatoAfricanAmericanswillingtoestablishtheirownnation there(Killingham2001:162).Theproposalmakesnomentionofthefateof the region’s two dozen federal and nonfederal Indian tribes were this new AfricanAmericannationtobecreated.
References Alfred, Taiaiake. 2001. From sovereignty to freedom: Towards an indigenouspoliticaldiscourse.IndigenousAffairs3:22–34. ——.2005. Wasáse: Indigenous pathways of action and freedom. Peterborough,ON:BroadviewPress. Beiser,Vince.2006.Apapertrailoftears:Howcasino-richtribesare dealingmembersout.Harper’sMagazine,August:74–77. Biolsi,Thomas.2005.Imaginedgeographies:Sovereignty,indigenous space, and American Indian struggle. American Ethnologist 32 (2): 239–259. Bordewich, Fergus W. 1996. Killing the White Man’s Indian: Reinventing Native Americans at the end of the twentieth century. New York: Doubleday. Bowen,JohnR.2000.Shouldwehaveauniversalconceptof“IndigenousPeoples’rights?”Ethnicityandessentialisminthetwenty-first century.AnthropologyToday16(4,August):12–16.
Sovereignty’sBetrayals 191
Brown,MichaelF.2005.Heritagetrouble:Recentworkontheprotectionofintangibleculturalproperty.InternationalJournalofCultural Property12:40–61. ——.2003.WhoownsNativeculture?Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity Press. Burke,Anthony.2002.Theperverseperseveranceofsovereignty.Borderlands1(2).Electronicdocument,http://www.borderlandsejournal. adelaide.edu.au/vol1no2_2002/burke-perverse.html, accessed 20 January2005. Cattelino,Jessica.2006.FloridaSeminolehousingandthesocialmeanings of sovereignty. Comparative Studies in Society and History 48: 699–726. Clifford, James. 2001. Indigenous articulations. Contemporary Pacific 13(2):468–490. Coffey,Wallace,andRebeccaTsosie.2001.Rethinkingthetribalsovereigntydoctrine:Culturalsovereigntyandthecollectivefutureof Indiannations.StanfordLawandPolicyReview12:191–221. Committee on Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate. 2006. “Gimme five”— Investigationoftriballobbyingmatters.109thCongress,SecondSession, 22June2006.Washington,DC:GovernmentPrintingOffice. Conquest,Robert.2000.Reflectionsonaravagedcentury.NewYork:W. W.Norton. Corntassel, Jeff J., and Tomas Hopkins Primeau. 1995. Indigenous “Sovereignty”andInternationalLaw:RevisedStrategiesforPursuing “Self-Determination.”HumanRightsQuarterly17(2):343–365. Daes,Erica-IreneA.,SpecialRapporteur.2004.Indigenouspeoples’permanentsovereigntyovernaturalresources(advanceeditedversion).Prevention of discrimination and protection of indigenous peoples. Vol. E/CN.4/ Sub.2/2004/30.56thSession,13July.Geneva:UnitedNations. Davenport,Christian.2004.Surprisingallyjoinslandfillquest:Thwarted developerwouldmakeIndiantribeownerofArundelSite.Washington Post,November1:B1. DraftDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoples.1994.UnitedNations DocumentE/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/2/Add.1.Geneva:UnitedNations. Eagleton,Terry.2003.Aftertheory.NewYork:BasicBooks. Evans,WilliamN.,andJulieH.Topoleski.2002.Thesocialandeconomic impact of Native American casinos. National Bureau of Economic ResearchWorkingPaper,W9198.Electronicdocument,http://papers. nber.gov/papers/w9198,accessedJanuary20,2005. Fahys,Judy.2002.DraftsshowseamysideofN-wastedeal:Privatefuel storage tried to get the Goshutes’ land for bargain-basement rate. SaltLakeTribune,September29:A1.
192
Michael F. Brown
Fenelon,JamesV.2000.TraditionalandmodernperspectivesonIndian gaming:Thestruggleforsovereignty.InIndiangaming:Whowins?, editedbyAngelaMullisandDavidKamper,108–128.LosAngeles: University of California, Los Angeles, American Indian Studies Center. Field,LesW.2003.DynamictensionsinIndigenoussovereigntyand representation:Asampler.AmericanEthnologist30(3):447–453. Flanagan,Tom.2000.FirstNations?Secondthoughts.Montreal:McGillQueen’sUniversityPress. Giddens,Anthony.1991.Modernityandself-identity:Selfandsocietyin thelatemodernage.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress. Hannum,Hurst.1996.Autonomy,sovereignty,andself-determination:The accommodation of conflicting rights (Revised Edition). Philadelphia: UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress. Harvey,David.2000.Spacesofhope.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia Press. Hoffman,John.1998.Sovereignty.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesota Press. IndianCountryToday.2004.SteadilyCometheUnions.Editorial,June 18.Electronicdocument,http://www.indiancountry.com,accessed January20,2005. Jackson,JeanE.,andKayV.Warren.2005.Indigenousmovementsin LatinAmerica,1992–2004:Controversies,ironies,newdirections. AnnualReviewsinAnthropology34:549–573. Johnson,Kirk.2005.Atribe,nimbleanddetermined,movesaheadwith nuclearstorageplan.NewYorkTimes,February28:A15. Kamat,Sangeeta.2001.Anthropologyandglobalcapital:Rediscovering thenoblesavage.CulturalDynamics13(1):29–51. Kamper,David.2006.Organizinginthecontextoftribalsovereignty:The NavajoAreaIndianHealthServicecampaignforunionrecognition. LaborStudiesJournal30(4):17–39. Karlsson, Bengt G. 2003. Anthropology and the “indigenous slot”: Claims to and debates about indigenous peoples’ status in India. CritiqueofAnthropology23(4):403–423. Killingham,MarilynPreston.2001.TheblacknationinNorthAmerica. In In pursuit of the right of self-determination: Collected papers and proceedings of the First International Conference on the Right to SelfDeterminationandtheUnitedNations,editedbyY.N.KlyandD.Kly, 161–163.Atlanta,GA:ClarityPress. Köchler, Hans. 2001. Self-determination as a means of democratizationoftheUNandtheinternationalsystem.InInpursuitoftheright
Sovereignty’sBetrayals 193
ofself-determination:CollectedpapersandproceedingsoftheFirstInternationalConferenceontheRighttoSelf-DeterminationandtheUnited Nations,editedbyY.N.KlyandD.Kly,133–142.Atlanta,GA:Clarity Press. Kuper,Adam.2003.ThereturnoftheNative.CurrentAnthropology44 (3):389–402. Limerick, Patricia Nelson. 2005. Live free and soar. New York Times, June29:A23. Mackey,Eva.2005.Universalrightsinconflict:“Backlash”and“benevolentresistance”toindigenouslandrights.AnthropologyToday21 (2)April:14–20. McSloy,StevenPaul.2003.The“miner’scanary”:Abird’seyeviewof American Indian law and its future. New England Law Review 37: 733–741. Millman,Joel.2002.HouseAdvantage:IndianCasinosWinbyPartly AvoidingCostlyLaborRules.WallStreetJournal,May7:A1. Perry,RichardWarren.2006.NativeAmericantribalgamingascrime againstnature:Environment,sovereignty,globalization.Politicaland LegalAnthropologyReview29(1):110–131. Porter,RobertB.1999.ThedemiseoftheOngwehowehandtheriseofthe NativeAmericans:RedressingthegenocidalactofforcingAmerican citizenshipuponindigenouspeoples.HarvardBlackLetterLawJournal 15(Spring):107–183. ——.2002. The meaning of indigenous nation sovereignty. Arizona StateLawJournal34(Spring):75–112. Robbins,Bruce,andElsaStamatopoulou.2004.Reflectionsonculture andculturalrights.SouthAtlanticQuarterly103(2–3):419–434. Smith,Andrea.2005.NativeAmericanfeminism,sovereignty,andsocial change.FeministStudies31(1):116–132. Sunder, Madhavi. 2003. Piercing the veil. Yale Law Journal 112 (6): 1399–1472. Taylor, Jonathan B., and Joseph P. Kalt. 2005. American Indians on reservations: A databook of socioeconomic change between the 1990 and2000censuses.HarvardProjectonAmericanIndianEconomic Development.Cambridge,MA:MalcolmWienerCenterforSocial Policy,HarvardUniversity.59pp. TimeMagazine.2002.WhoGetstheMoney?December16:48–50. Turner,Stephen.2002.Sovereignty,ortheartofbeingnative.Cultural Critique13(Spring):74–100. Waldron,Jeremy.2003.Indigeneity?FirstPeoplesandlastoccupancy.New ZealandJournalofPublicandInternationalLaw1(1):55–82.
194
Michael F. Brown
Watkins,Joe.2005.Culturalnationalists,internationalists,and“intranationalists”:Who’srightandwhoseright?InternationalJournalof CulturalProperty12(1):78–94. Weber,Max.1958[1918].Scienceasavocation.InFromMaxWeber: Essaysinsociology,editedandtranslatedbyH.H.GerthandC.Wright Mills,129–156.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. Wilkins,DavidE.,andKeithRichotte.2003.TheRehnquistCourtand indigenous rights: The expedited diminution of native powers of governance.Publius:TheJournalofFederalism33(3):83–110. Young,IrisMarion.2000.HybridDemocracy:IroquoisFederalismand thePostcolonialProject.InPoliticaltheoryandtherightsofindigenous peoples, edited by Duncan Ivison, Paul Patton, and Will Sanders, 237–258.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Part 3 Indigeneity Beyond Borders
This page intentionally left blank
s e v e n
Varieties of Indigenous Experience: Diasporas, Homelands, Sovereignties James Clifford
Weshallvisitourpeoplewhohavegonetothelandsofdiasporaandtell themthatwehavebuiltsomething,anewhomeforallofus.Andtaking acuefromtheocean’severflowingandencirclingnature,wewilltravel farandwidetoconnectwithoceanicandmaritimepeopleselsewhere, and swap stories of voyages that we have taken and those yet to be embarkedon. —EpeliHau’ofa,ontheOceaniaCentreforArtsandCulture,Suva Homeiswherethenavelcordwascut. —AMelanesiansaying “Whatcontradictorypeopleweare!” —LindaTuhiwaiSmith,attheWenner-Greninternationalconference, “IndigenousExperienceToday,”March2005
“I
ndigenous experience” is difficult to contain: the senses of belongingevokedbythephraseareintegraltomany,anddiverse, localisms,andnationalisms.1Sometimesitcomesdowntoaminimal claim, relational and strategic: “we were here before you.” Feeling indigenousmaycrystallizearoundhostilitytooutsiders,toinvaders orimmigrants.Manyformsofnativismsustainthesesortsofborders, reflectingimmediatepoliticalagendas,self-defense,oraggression(Amita BaviskarandJosephNiamnjohthisvolume,offercautionaryexamples). Theanteriorityclaimedcanberelativelyshallowandfundamentally 197
198
James Clifford
contested: all sorts of people, these days, claim “indigeneity” vis-àvis someone else. There are, nonetheless, many social groups with undeniably deep roots in a familiar place, and they are the subjects ofthischapter.Thepeoplesinquestionarecalledaboriginal,tribal, first nations, native, autochthonous, or a range of more particular, local names. They may or may not (or may only sometimes) claim theidentity“indigenous.”Whatevernamesthesepeopletakeorare given,theyaredefinedbylongattachmenttoalocaleandbyviolent historiesofoccupation,expropriation,andmarginalization.Adiverse rangeofexperiencesfallswithinthisloosegrouping,anditsboundaries, despiteattemptsbytheInternationalLabourOrganization(ILO)and UNagenciestoformallydefineindigenouspeoples,arefuzzy(Brown 2003;Niezen2003). Thisfuzzinesssuggestsacertainopen-endedhistoricaldynamism. Peopleareimprovisingnewwaystobenative:articulations,performances, and translations of old and new cultures and projects. The increaseofindigenousmovementsatdifferentscales—local,national, regional,andinternational—hasbeenoneofthesurprisesofthelate 20thcentury.Tribal(“archaic”or“primitive”)peopleswere,afterall, destinedtowitherintherelentlesswindofmodernization.Thiswasa historicalfact,understoodbyeveryone—exceptthepeopleinquestion, busywithdifficultandinventivesurvivalstruggles.This“survival”has beenaninteractive,dynamicprocessofshiftingscalesandaffiliations, uprootingandrerooting,thewaxingandwaningofidentities.Inthe currentmomenttheseprocessestakeshapeasacomplexemergence, a présence indigène or a performative indigenous “voice” (Tsing this volume).Whatexperiencesoflossandrenewal,whatshiftingpastand presentattachments,whatsocial,cultural,andpoliticalstrategiesare activeintheserearticulations?Agrowingbodyofscholarshipgrapples withthesequestions:forexampletheprogrammaticoverviewofSahlins 1999andthecomplexNativeAmericanhistoriesdescribedbyHarmon 1998andSturm2002. Tograsptheactive,unfinished,processesatworkinvariousarticulatedsitesofindigeneityithelpstoopenup,oratleast“loosen”(Teaiwa 2001),commonunderstandingsofkeytermslikenative,authochthonous, and sovereign. The definitional closures built into these words, the culturalandpoliticalpracticestheyauthorize,arebothnecessaryand dangerous. The strong claims they express contribute centrally to indigenoussocialmovements.Theyalsoclosedownpossibilities,and are,inpractice,supplementedandcross-cutbylessabsoluteexperiences andtactics.Therearevariouswaystobe“native”inrelationtoaplace;
VarietiesofIndigenousExperience:Diasporas,Homelands,Sovereignties 199
assumptions of firstness or “autochthony” often obscure important historiesofmovement;and“sovereign”controlisalwayscompromised andrelative.Morehappensunderthesignoftheindigenousthanbeing born,orbelonging,inaboundedlandornation. Thischapterworkstomakespaceforcontradictionandexcessacross a broad spectrum of indigenous experiences today by loosening the commonoppositionof“indigenous”and“diasporic”formsoflife.The goalisaricherandmorecontingentrealism,afullersenseofwhathas happened,ishappening,andmaybeemerging.Theargumentdoesnot denyclaimsforlanded,rootedorlocalidentities,assertingthatthey reallyare,oroughttobe,diasporic.Nordoesitassumethatcosmopolitan experiences are historically more progressive—even though new scales and dimensions of indigenous life are proliferating in a globallyinterconnected,locallyinflectedpostmodernity.Questioning an essential opposition does not eliminate the historical differences ortensionsexpressedbythecontrast.Nativeortribalpeoplesclaim, oftenwithstronghistoricaljustification,tobelonginaplace,adensely familiar and deeply inhabited landscape. Australian Aborigines, for example,havebeenlivinginandwiththeir“country”foranextremely longtime—longenoughtopersuadeevenskepticscommittedtoalinear historical ontology, that it makes sense to say they have been there “forever,” or “from the beginning.” Such quintessentially “mythic” assertions of ancient origins evoke a “historical” continuity. With varyingdegreesofarchaeologicalsupport,Inuit,PacificIslanders,the variousnativepeoplesofNorthandSouthAmerica;SamiinNorway, Sweden,Finland,andRussia;theDayaksofWestKilimantan,andothers, allmakecredibleclaims,ifnottoautochthony,atleasttodeeplocal roots: an indigenous longue durée. Such historical experiences begin andendwithlivesgrounded,profoundly,inoneplace.Whatcouldbe moredistantfromdiasporicidentifications,experiencesthatoriginate in,areconstitutedby,physicaldisplacements,uprootings? Yetmanyoftheexperiencesmadevisibleandintelligiblebydiaspora theoristssuchasHall(1990),Gilroy(1993),Mishra(1996a,1996b),or Brah(1996),thetransmigrantcircuitsrevealedbyRogerRouse(1991) andNinaGlick-Schiller(1995),andthehistoricalpressuresandstructuresanalyzedbycomparativesociologistslikeRobinCohen(1997)have theirequivalents,ornearequivalents,incontemporaryindigenouslife. Ineverydaypracticesofmobilityanddwelling,thelineseparatingthe diasporicfromtheindigenousthickens;acomplexborderlandopens up. Contested lines of indigenous autonomy and sovereignty are drawnacrossit:thefraughtrelationshipof“off-island”Hawaiiansto
200
James Clifford
movementsofnativenationalism(Kauanui1999),ortensionsbetween urban-dwellingAboriginalsorIndianswiththoselivingclosetoancestral lands.Indigenousattachmentstoplacearecomplexlymediatedanddo notnecessarilyentailcontinuousresidence,especiallyincontextssuch as the United States, Canada, Australia, and Aotearoa/New Zealand, whereamajorityofnativepeoplenowliveincities.Thus,itmakes somesensetospeakof“indigenousdiasporas.” Whatkindofsense?Translationiscontinuallyatissue.Onecannot simplyimportaconceptthatisassociatedwith,say,theNorthAtlantic slave trade’s aftermath (Gilroy) or with postcolonial migrations to former imperial centers (Brah) into situations of profound, ongoing connectionwithlandandcountry,experiencesassociatedwithAustralian Aborigines, with Pacific Islanders, with Arctic Inuit, or with Mayan Indians.Weneedtoexplorethespecificityofindigenousdiasporas,or perhaps better, diasporic dimensions or conjunctures in contemporary nativelives.Tobringthelanguageofdiasporaintoindigenouscontexts istoconfrontitsbuilt-indifficulties.Amongrecentcritiquesofdiasporic orpostcolonialtheorizing,nativescholars(e.g.,Teaiwa2001)observe thatwhentraveling,displacementandmigrationareseenasnormative, oratleastcharacteristicofthecontemporaryworld,thefocustends torelegatenativepeoples,yetagain,tothepastortothemargins.For example,whencultural-studiesdiasporatheoristsreject“nativism”in itsracist,littleEngland,Thatcheriteforms,theycanmakealldeeply rooted attachments seem illegitimate, bad essentialisms. Genuinely complexindigenoushistories,whichinvolvemobilityaswellasstaying put,andthathavealwaysbeenbasedontransformative,potentially expansiveinteractions,becomeinvisible.Thenativeisthrownoutwith thebathwaterofnativism(forcorrectives,seethearticlesinDiazand Kauanui2001). Theresultistoobscurespecificallyindigenousformsofinteractive cosmopolitanism:genealogicalinclusionofoutsiders;tradingrelations; circularmigration;vernaculardiscoursesof“development”;mission, maritime,andmilitarycontextsoftravel(Chappell1997;Gegeo1998; Gidwani and Sivaramakrishnan 2003; Phillips 1998; Sahlins 1989; Swain1993).Exclusivistnativismis,ofcourse,prominentinpolitical indigenism:forexample,thenationalistrhetoricof“RedPower,”of Hawaiiansovereigntymovements,ofNativeFijianattacksondiasporic Indians.However,suchclaimsarenotsustainableinall,oreveninmost, livedcircumstances.Acrossthecurrentrangeofindigenousexperiences, identificationsareseldomexclusivelylocalorinwardlookingbut,rather, workatmultiplescalesofinteraction.Thelanguageofdiasporacanbe
VarietiesofIndigenousExperience:Diasporas,Homelands,Sovereignties 201
usefulinbringingsomethingofthiscomplexityintoview.Itcannot transcendthetensionbetweenthematerialinterestsandnormative visionsofnativesandnewcomers,particularlyinstructurallyunequal settler colonial situations (Fujikane and Okamura 2000). But when diasporic displacements, memories, networks, and reidentifications are recognized as integral to tribal, aboriginal, native survival and dynamism, a lived, historical landscape of ruptures and affiliations becomesmorevisible. “Diasporatheory”mayhaveenjoyedits15minutesofacademicfame. Aihwa Ong (1999) and others writing about overseas Chinese have questioneditsextension.Someculturalstudieswriters—likeIenAngin herrecentcollection,OnNotSpeakingChinese(2001)—havebackedaway fromanearlierpositiveembraceofdiasporicself-location,nowgrappling with the absolutist dimensions of what Benedict Anderson (1988) calls“long-distancenationalisms.”InhisaccountsofIndiandiaspora cultures,VijayMishraavoidscelebration,alwayskeepingtheconstitutive tensionbetweenessentialismandhybridityclearlyinview,showingthe “interrelatedconditions”ofwhathecallsdiasporasof“exclusivism”and of“theborder,”theformerfocusedonreturntheotheroninteraction andcrossover(Mishra1996a,1996b).Celebratoryvisionsofdiaspora, whethertheytakenationalistorantinationalistform,arepermanently troubledbytheiropposites.Thisdialecticalinstabilitycanbeananalytic strength:theopposedtendenciesofdiasporicexperience,exclusivism andbordercrossing,aregoodtothinkwith.Indeed,acontradictory complexitywithrespecttobelonging—bothinsideandoutsidenational structuresincontemporarymultisitedsocialworlds—mayturnouttobe diaspora’smostproductive“theoretical”contribution.Thelastsection ofthischapterarguesthatindigenousclaimsto“sovereignty”contain analogouscontradictions,andpossibilities. * * * ColinCalloway,anethnohistorianoftheAbenakiIndiansintheU.S. state of Vermont, uses the term diaspora to describe the dispersal of localIndiangroupsinthefaceofsettlerencroachmentsduringthe19th century(Calloway1990).TheapparentmeltingawayoftheAbenaki, which was interpreted as a disappearance (there were of course the usualmilitarypressuresandepidemiologicaldisasters)was,according toCalloway,inpartatleastamovementtodifferent,safer,placesin theneighboringstateofMaine,andinCanada(seealsoGhere1993). According to this account, diaspora was a means of survival for the
202
James Clifford
Abenaki,whodidnotentirelylosecontactwitheachotherandarestill around,reconstitutingelementsoftheircultureinnewcircumstances. For relatively mobile native groups, the experience of moving away fromhomelandsunderpressuremaynotbeadequatelycapturedby thenotionof“exile.”“Diaspora”getssomewhatclosertoasociospatial realityofconnectedness-in-dispersion. “Exile”denotesaconditionofenforcedabsence,withthesustained expectationofreturninghomeassoonastheconditionsofexpulsion canbecorrected.Thetermthusappliestoabroadrangeofdisplaced native peoples, even to those still living on their ancestral lands in reduced reservations or enclaves without the ability to freely hunt, fish, gather, travel, or conduct ceremonies in appropriate sites. The goalofanactualreturnremainsalive,andittakesconcretepolitical forminlandclaimsandrepatriations.Atthesametime,manypeople giveuptheideaofaphysicalreturntotraditionalcommunitiesand land,focusinginsteadonceremonialobservations,seasonalvisitsto reservations or “country,” and symbolic tokens or performances of tradition.Totheextentthatlatergenerations,forcedordrawninto townsorcities,havenorealisticintentionofactuallylivingcontinuously intraditionalplaces,thentheconnectiontolosthomelandscomes closertoadiasporicrelation,withitscharacteristicformsoflonging, long-distancenationalism,anddisplacedperformancesof“heritage.” Diasporaclassicallypresupposesdistancefromtheplaceoforiginand deferredreturns.Thisdistinguishesitfromthe“circuitsofmigration” and“borderlands”experiencesofmanyMexicanosintheUnitedStates orCaribbeansinNewYorkCity,wherecomingandgoingisfrequent. Yet modern communications can shrink distances and make many diasporas more like borderlands in the frequency and intimacy of possiblecontacts(Clifford1994). Indigenous populations actively sustain these sorts of diasporic borderlands,aswewillseeinanAlaskanexamplediscussedindetail below.Itwillbenosurprisetoanyonewhostudieslabormigrationsthat manynativepopulationsarespatiallyfarflung.IndiansfromMichoacan inhabitMexicoCityanddofarmworkinCalifornia.Therearemany thousands of Samoans in Auckland, Tongans in Salt Lake City, and HawaiiansinLosAngeles.SignificantNavajopopulationscanbefound intheSanFranciscoArea(theresultofgovernmentrelocationprograms inthe1960s).Examplescouldbemultiplied:theclassicportrayalby Mitchell (1960) of Mohawk steel workers, Gossen’s early account of Chamulan migration as expansive cosmology (1999 [1983]), the KabrediasporaandtravelcircuitsintegraltoPiot’srecentethnography,
VarietiesofIndigenousExperience:Diasporas,Homelands,Sovereignties 203
RemotelyGlobal(1999),Darnell’s(1999)grounded“accordionmodelof nomadicNativeAmericansocialorganization.” When addressing the lived spectrum of indigenous separations from,andorientationsto,homeland,village,orreservation,weneed tocomplicatediasporicassumptionsof“loss”and“distance.”Likewise, urbanizationshouldnotbeconceivedasaone-waytripfromvillage tocity.GidwaniandSivaramakrishnan(2003)provideasophisticated critique of both Marxist and liberal modernisms in an ethnographically persuasive account of “circular migration” by “tribals” and “dalits”inIndia.Embodiedpracticesofworkanddesireareportrayed inGramsciantermsasentangledcounterhegemonicprojectsopening up“ruralcosmopolitan”possibilitiesforidentityandculturalassertion. Thesamecanbesaidofmuchcontemporary“indigenous”migration— coerced, voluntary, or specific combinations of the two. Avoiding a modernist teleology of urbanization as the simple abandonment of rurallife,ethnographicaccountsnowfollowthe“routes”ofmultisited communities(Lambert2002providesarichWestAfricancasestudy). Thefocusshiftstoparticularconnectionsandtranslations,intermediate stoppingplacesandcircuitsofreturn.Forexample,inMerlan’sfinely detailedethnography,AustralianAboriginal“mobs”haveclusteredon the outskirts of towns, and at cattle stations, while orienting these settlementsinthedirectionoftraditional“country”andmakingregular journeys“outbush”ingroupstogathertraditionalfoodsandtodance andsingatsacredsites(Merlan1998;alsoChristen2004).Relations ofkinshipwithcountrycan,inpractice,besustained,evenwhenthe landislegallyownedbynon-Aboriginals.Ofcoursetherearestruggles overmultiple“uses”andaccessisnotalwaysnegotiable(thesamegoes forhunting,fishing,andgatheringrightsinNorthAmerica).Butthe essentialfactofpragmatic,ifnotlegallyrecognized,sovereigntyisthat concrete ties to ancestral places have not been severed. “Diasporic” distanceisspecificandrelational. Thesepartiallydisplaced,sustainedrelationsto“country”needtobe compared,alongacontinuum,withtheseasonal,ordeferred,“returns” ofmoredistantcitydwellers.RecentscholarshipinAustraliahasinvoked thelanguageofdiasporawhenaddressingdifferentialattachmentsto landinthe“NativeTitleEra.”(Rigsby1995;Smith2000;Weiner2002; see also Lilley’s archaeological interventions 2004, 2006) Without reducingAboriginalidentitytoasinglenexusofstruggle,itisworth dwellingonhowkeyissuesofarticulatedcontinuityarebeingdebated intheemerginglandclaimscontext.BenjaminRichardSmith(drawing onRigsby)questionsarigiddistinction,prevalentinbothscholarship
204
James Clifford
andlaw,between“traditional”and“historical”people.Theformerlive inproximaterelationshipswithancientlandsandcustomsandexpress thisin“mythic”claimstohave“beenhereforever;”thelattertrace their“Aboriginal”heritagethroughcolonialhistoriesofdisplacement andrecoveredgenealogies.NativeTitlelawhastendedtorecognizethe claimsoflocallybasedgroupswhiledenyingthoseofAboriginalswhose physicaldistancefromcountryisviewedasanindexoflostauthenticity. Smithmakesclearthatmanyofthepeoplehecalls“diasporic,”livingin townsandcities,donotfallreadilyintoeitherhistoricalortraditional categories.Heseesnegotiabledifferencesnotanessentialopposition. Citydwellerstendtosubscribetoamorehomogenous“tribal”model of Aboriginality than local people whose sense of belonging and ownershipisbasedonspecificclansandresponsibilitiestosites.This difference of perspective may lead to incomprehension and mutual suspicion.Butintheprocessofmakinglandclaims,thetwogroups canovercomeinitialsuspicionsandworktogether.Onegrouplearns todefer,atleastsomeofthetime,tothelocalknowledgeofelders;the other,atleastpragmatically,comestoembraceawider“Aboriginal” mobilizationandfuture.Ofcoursethereisnoguaranteeofunityin thesecontingentalliances.DrawingonwhatMerlan(1997)observesis an“epistemologicalopenness”inAboriginalconnectionstocountry, andonacommon,underlyingsocioculturalstructure,diasporicand localpeoplefashionnewcoalitionsandscalesofidentification.Rather thanembodyingthe“mythic”pastandthe“historical”future,local anddiasporicgroupsrepresent“twotrajectoriesofculturalcontinuity articulatingwithchangingcontexts”(Smith2000:8;seealsoSutton 1988,forpracticalfusionsofmythandhistory). JamesWeiner(2002)challengeslegalandanthropologicalnotionsof “continuity”thatseespecifictraits(suchasphysicalproximitytocountry, languagefluency,religiousobservance,etc.)asmake-or-breakconditions ofidentity.Herecognizesamorepolytheticanddynamicensemblethrough-time(seealsoClifford1988,2001).Thereproductionofsocial lifeisalwaysamatterofrecurring“loss”and“recovery,”ofselective transmission and reconstructed history in changing circumstances. UrbanAboriginalswhoreconnectidentitiesandaffiliationsaredoing nothingfundamentallynew.DrawingonJewishdiasporaexperiences, WeinerlendssupporttolandrightsfordisplacedAboriginals:“theidea orimageofahomeland,suchashassustaineddiasporicpopulations throughout the world in countless examples through the centuries, would be sufficient to maintain something that the legal profession wouldhavetocallproprietaryrightstocountry”(2002:10)Thisrather
VarietiesofIndigenousExperience:Diasporas,Homelands,Sovereignties 205
strongculturalistpositioniskeptintensionwithamaterialistcriterion deployedbyAustraliancourts(andmorethanafewhard-nosedMarxists) thatwouldrequirenativetitletobebasedoncontinuinguse,“asystem ofeconomicandadaptationalrelationstoaparticularterritory”(Weiner 2002:10).Acceptingthetension,andproperlyrejectinganyideational/ materialistdichotomy,Weinerconcludes:“Somewherebetweenthese twopoles—asimaginaryastheyareunrealisticinAustralianterms—lie allofthenativetitleclaimsinAustralia”(2002:10).Betweenthesepoles, too, lies an uneven continuum of ideational, embodied, structural, andmaterialpracticesthatneedstobeunderstoodasbothcomplexly rootedanddiasporic. Confrontingtheactualdiversityofindigenoussocieties,oneworks withaseriesofcontextsandscales,newtermsofpoliticalmobilization andexpandedsocialmaps.CollectivetermssuchasNativeAmerican, Native Alaskan, First Peoples (in Canada), Kanak (in New Caledonia), Mayan (in Guatemala), Aboriginal (in Australia), Masyarakat Adat (in Indonesia) represent large-scale articulated identities—alliances of particular “tribes,” language groups, villages, or clans. They include peoplesustainingdifferentspatialandsocialrelationswithancestral places,arangeofdistancesfrom“land.”Forallwhoidentifyas“native,” “tribal,”or“indigenous,afeelingofconnectednesstoahomelandand tokin,afeelingofgroundedpeoplehood,isbasic.Howthisfeelingis practiced,indiscursive,embodied,emplacedways,canbequitevaried. Urbanpopulationsmayormaynotreturntoruralplacesforfamily gatherings, ceremonial events, dance festivals, subsistence activities, powwows,andsoforth.Forsomeitisamatteroffrequentvisits;others goonceayear,forsummerormidwintersocialactivities;somereturn rarelyornever. Thevarietiesofindigenousexperienceproliferatebetweenthepoles ofautochthony(wearehereandhavebeenhereforever)anddiaspora (weyearnforahomeland:“NextyearintheBlackHills!”).Seeingan articulatedcontinuum,acomplexrangeofaffiliations,offersafresh perspectiveonbothendsofthespectrum.Iftherearediasporicaspectsof indigenouslife,thereverseisalsotrue.Forsomethinglikeanindigenous desireanimatesdiasporicconsciousness:thesearchforsomewhereto belongthatisoutsidetheimaginedcommunityofthedominantnationstate.Indiaspora,theauthentichomeisfoundinanotherimaginedplace (simultaneouslypastandfuture,lostanddesired)aswellasinconcrete socialnetworksoflinkedplaces.Thiswholerangeoffeltattachmentsis cruciallyapartofwhatAvtarBrahhascalled“ahomingdesire”(Brah 1996:180).Diasporicdwellingpractices(asdistinctfromtheabsolutist
206
James Clifford
ideologiesofreturnthatoftenaccompanythem)avoidtheeither–orof exileorassimilation.Peoplemakeaplaceherebykeepingaliveastrong feelingofattachmentelsewhere.Theall-or-nothingofnaturalization, ofpropercitizenship,issidestepped,butwithoutcondemningoneself toaconditionofpermanentmarginality.This,atleastistheproject of diasporic belonging: to be black and British, Muslim and French, LatinoandU.S.American.Inthislivedpractice,variousstrongforms of “cultural citizenship” emerge and become battlegrounds, as the hyphenin“nation-state”loosens(FloresandBenmayor1997;Ramirez inpress). Analogues from indigenous experience are not hard to find: it is common,forexample,tobeatriballyenrolledAmericanIndian,tolove baseballandbeproudofone’sserviceintheU.S.Army.Such“double belonging”(aphraseappliedtoTurksinGermanybyRivaKastoriano 2003)requiresaportablesenseoftheindigenous.Itiswhyclaimsto ethnicidentityorpeoplehoodcanbeprofoundyetnotnationalistina bounded,territorialsense(Hall1989).Inlivedpractice,then,indigenous anddiasporicmultipleattachmentsarenotmutuallyexclusive.And althoughtherearecertainlysituationsofpoliticalstruggleinwhichthe ideologicaloppositionindigenous–diasporicisactivated,therearealso agreatmanyrelativelyinvisibleintermediate,pragmaticexperiences where the two kinds of belonging interpenetrate and coexist. The purposeofopeninguptheborderlandbetweendiasporicandindigenous paradigmsistorecognizeanuneventerrainofspatialscales,cultural affiliations,andsocialprojects(Tsing2000offersalucidandcomplex map). A realistic account of “indigenous experience” engages with actuallifeoverflowingthedefinitions,thepoliticalprograms,andall themuseumsofarchaismandauthenticity—self-createdandexternally imposed. * * * Letusnowturntoaparticularcase,drawnfromtheworkofAnnFienupRiordan(1990,2000),ananthropologistwhohasworkedcloselyfor nearly30yearswiththeNelsonIslandYup’ikofwesternAlaska.FienupRiordan and her native collaborators have described Yup’ik society, colonialandpostcolonial,inconsiderabledetail.Whatfollowsarethe broadoutlines. BeforethearrivaloftheRussiansinthelate18thcenturytheinhabitantsoftheKuskokwimandYukondeltaslivedalifeofsettledmobility, “nomadic”withindiscreteterritories.Hunting,gathering,andfishing
VarietiesofIndigenousExperience:Diasporas,Homelands,Sovereignties 207
(freshwater and ocean) provided a relatively rich livelihood. Long classified as “Eskimos” (based on linguistic and social similarities to InupiaqandInuit),Yup’ikhaveneverlivedinigloosorspearedseals throughtheice.Inmanyways,theydefycommonstereotypes(FienupRiordan 1990). The colonial impact of the Russians was relatively light,becausetherewerenoseaotterstohuntalongtheBeringSea coast.TheaboriginalinhabitantsofwesternAlaskadidnotsufferthe harshconquestandforcedlaborregimesimposedontheirneighbors to the south, “Aleuts”—a Russian catch-all term now distinguished asOnangan(AleutianIslanders)andAlutiiq(formerPacificEskimos). Later,theabsenceofgoldinYup’ikterritoriessparedthemtheheavy disruptionsexperiencedbyothernativepopulationsinAlaska.Yup’ik didsufferfromcontactdiseases,andtheirsocietiesunderwentdisruptive changes. IfRussianinfluencewasmoregradualthanelsewhere,itdidresult inwidespreadconversiontoRussianOrthodoxy(albeitwithsyncretic indigenouscomponents),thepresenceofcreolekinship(Russiancolonizationencouragedintermarriage),andnewtradeandcommercial relationships.AftertheAmericanstookcontrolofAlaskainthe1870s, fresh missionaries arrived, and new indigenized Christianities took hold, particularly Catholic and Moravian. Over these years, native kinshipstructures,villageaffiliations,subsistencefoodconsumption, andlanguageuse,whileundergoingtransformations,remainedviable. Inrecentdecades,withtherenewalofnativelandclaimsinAlaska, heritagedisplays,developmentactivities,andidentitypolitics,Yup’iit havesustainedtheirreputationasalocallyrootedpeople,confident intheirsenseofidentity,stillconnectedwithtraditionalaffiliations whilepragmaticallyassertingnewwaystobenative. Thereisnoneedtopaintaromanticpictureofsocioculturalsurvival. ManyYup’iitcontinuetosuffertheperniciouseffectsofcolonialdisruption,economicmarginalization,andblockedfutures.Aselsewherein nativeAlaska,alcoholismandhighsuicideratestaketheirtoll.Welfare dependencycoexistswithindependent,subsistencehuntingandfishing. The sweeping land settlements of 1971 (the Alaska Native Claims SettlementAct[ANCSA])wereamixedblessing.ANCSAstabilizedland holdingsinastatewhereindigenouspopulations,whiledispossessed ofmuchterritory,hadneverbeensubjectedtotheforcedlocalization of a reservation system. And although it brought considerable new resourcestotribalcommunities,ANCSAcappedindigenoustitletoland andintroducedpropertyboundariesbetweennativecommunitiesand nativecorporations.Thesettlementsubsidizednewformsofeconomic
208
James Clifford
activityandtheemergenceofcorporateelites.Italsosupportedabroad rangeofheritageprojects,thearticulation,translation,andperformance ofwhatFienup-Riordancalls“consciousculture”(2000:167).InYup’ik countrythisinvolvedtherevivalofmaskmakinganddancing,once banned, now encouraged, by Christian authorities—part of a more generalcontextofnativeresurgence,alliance,andentanglementwith statestructures(Dombrowski2002andClifford2004aoffercontrasting assessmentsofthesedevelopments).InthisongoingperiodofNative Alaskan sociocultural realignments, tribal governments and liberal statestructurescanneitherbeseparatednormeldedinafunctioning hegemony. Fienup-Riordan documents a generally hopeful story of Yup’ik continuity: a dynamic local tradition is sustained, refocused, andincertainrespectsstrengthenedbyexperiencesofmobilityand diaspora. InHuntingTraditioninaChangingWorld(2000)Fienup-Riordanshows thatmovementoutoftraditionalYup’ikvillagesintoregionaltowns and state urban centers has markedly increased. Although the story she tells may have a class bias, focused as it is on Yupiit who have themeanstocreateextendednetworks,totravelanddistributefood inthecity(2000:279,n.13),thephenomenashetracesarefarfrom limitedtoanarrowelite.Mostimportantly,thismigrationdoesnot conformtotheone-way“urbanization”ofmodernizationmodels.There isconsiderablecirculationbetweentraditionalYup’ikcountryandnew centersofnativelifeinAnchorage,Alaska’slargestcity.Fienup-Riordan portraysthesemovementsaspartofanemergingYup’ik“worldwide web:”multicenterednativelifeatnewsocialandspatialscales.In1970, 4,800AlaskanativeswerelivinginAnchoragemore-or-lesspermanently (“more-or-less”isanimportantqualification).By1990thenumberhad risen to 14,500, and by 2000 it was approaching 19,000. In FienupRiordan’sassessment,thetrendreflectsnotsomuchanemptyingof Yup’ikcountryasitsextension. Yup’ik circulation between village and city adapts and transforms traditional exchanges and seasonal rhythms. Formerly, the summer wasatimeofmobilehuntingandgatheringinsmallfamilyunits,the winteratimeforcomingtogetherinlargesocialgroupings,intense rituallife,festivals,andexchanges.Forurban-basedYupiitsimilarsocial activitiesareperformedinnewwaysandsometimesatdifferenttimes. Thisistheresultofmanyfactors,includingemploymentpatternsand vacationsaswellastransportationpossibilities.Yup’ikcommunityis stitchedtogethertodaywithsnowmachines,telephones,and,especially, airplanes,largeandsmall.YupiitlivinginAnchorageregularlyreturnto
VarietiesofIndigenousExperience:Diasporas,Homelands,Sovereignties 209
villagesaroundNelsonIslandandtheKuskwokwimDeltatoengagein fishing,hunting,andgatheringofseasonalfoods.“Subsistence”activities (widelyidentifiedinAlaskawithnativeidentityand“tradition”)canbe combinedwithcommercialprojects.InWinter,recentlyreviveddance festivals,CatholicandMoravianholidays,andtheOrthodoxChristmas andNewYeardrawreturnvisitors.Duringanespeciallyintenseperiod inearlyandmid-January,oldmidwintertraditionsofsocialgathering andexchangesmeldwithChristianritualsbroughtbytheRussianstwo centuriesago(Fienup-Riordan1990). YupiitwhodwellinregionalvillagesandtownsvisitAnchoragefor avarietyofreasons,includingmarriages,births,deaths,andshopping, droppingofffrozenandrecentlygathered“nativefoods.”Theyalso traveltotheAlaskaNativeMedicalCenter(ANMCissomethingmore than a medical establishment; it is specifically designed for Native Alaskanhealthneedsandorganizedwithlocalculturesinmind.Its giftshopoffersanimportantoutletforartsandcrafts).Politicaland educational gatherings are also a draw, for example the convention of Alaskan bilingual teachers that annually draws more than 1,000 participantsfromalloverthestate.Heritageperformancesandsharing ofnativefoodsplayacentralroleinallsuchencounters. Patterns of visiting and circulation between village and city are drivenbyinterlockingsocial,economic,political,andculturalforces. Clearly many of the pressures and opportunities that are familiar from modernization theories, forces that work to “disembed” local societies(Giddens1990[1983]),areresponsibleforthemovementout ofvillagesandintocities:anerosionoftraditionalsubsistence,rural poverty,asearchforemployment,forwidersocioculturalhorizons,for genderequality,andsoforth.ButwhatemergesfromFienup-Riordan’s accountisarecognizably“indigenous”formofmodernity,oratleastits entangledpossibility.Traditionalhunting,fishing,andgathering,while theyarethreatenedandregulated,havenotbeenwipedoutbycapitalist modesofproductionanddistribution.Theytakenewformsalongside, and in conjunction with, modern economies. Communal (familial, village-level)affiliationsandexchangesareextendedbymovements intoandoutofcities.Ratherthanalinearprocessofdisembedding (or deterritorializing), one observes a transformation and extension of culturally distinctive spatial and social practices: reembedding, extendingterritories,dwellingwithairplanes. Fienup-Riordan sees strategies of survival and “development,” individualandcommunitarian,thatarepursuedtosignificantdegrees onnativeterms(cf.workonindigenousconceptionsofdevelopment
210
James Clifford
inMelanesiabyCurtis2002;Gegeo1998;Sahlins1989,1993andin Africa by Peel 1978). This agency is not free or unconstrained. Nor is it simply coerced. For example, more young women than young men from Yup’ik country are going to Anchorage—both in search of education and escaping village restrictions. Such “modernizing” strategies are not experienced as a loss of native identity—quite the contrary.InAnchorage,Yupiitenterextendednetworksofeconomic exchange, politics, and culture—connections at state, national, and internationallevels.Inthesenetworkstheycometofeel“Yup’ik,”rather thanprimarilyrootedinspecifickingroupsorvillages.Thistribalor nationalethnonym,whichonlybegantobewidelyusedafterthe1960s, nowmarksdistinctioninmultiethnicneighborhoods,inpan-Alaskan nativesettings,inFourthWorldcontacts,inrelationswithnon-natives, inavarietyofculturalperformances,exhibits,websites,andthelike. Clearly,anincreaseoftravelinganddwellingbeyondlocalvillages andregionalcentershascontributedtoanexpandedarticulationof “Yup’ik” identity. The experience is far from unique. A comparable, thoughdifferentlycompelled,SolomonIslandexperienceisevokedby DavidGegeoinwhichMalitansmigratingawayfromtheirhomeland “willseetheirmovementasanexpansionofplace,andattendantonit willbeastrengtheningofthesenseofindigeneity”(2001:499).Indeed, many nationalisms have first been articulated by exiles or students in foreign capitals (e.g., Rafael 1989 on José Rizal and the Filipino “ilustrados”).Indigenous“tribal,”asopposedtoplace-basedorclan, affiliations,tendtobemorecharacteristicofdisplacedpopulationsliving inurbansettingswherelanguage,extendedkinship,andconsumable symbolsofobjectified“heritage”predominateoverspecificlocalties withlandandfamily.Itwouldbewrong,however,toturnacontrastinto anopposition.Inpractice,identificationsarepluralandsituated:oneis fromavillage,fromNelsonIsland,fromtheKuskokwimregion,aYup’ik, oranAlaskaNative,dependingonthesituation.Localaffiliationsare notreplacedbywider“indigenous”formationsinazero-sumrelation. LindaTuhiwaiSmithsuggestedasimilarcomplexityattheWenner-Gren conferenceoriginatingthisvolume,sayingshegrewupthinkingthat beingbiculturalwasbeingaMaoriperson(becausewomen’sroleswere sodifferentinhermother’sandfather’stribes).Being“indigenous,” sheobserved,hasbeenawayofworkingthroughthedifferentlayers ofheridentity:“Whatcontradictorypeopleweare!” InAlaska,theemergenceoflarger-scale“tribal”and“NativeAlaskan” social formations is bound up with liberal multiculturalism and governmentality:ANCSA,nativeartmarkets,heritagevenues,tourism,
VarietiesofIndigenousExperience:Diasporas,Homelands,Sovereignties 211
NGOs,andcorporatesponsors.Présenceindigènecomesataprice(Hale 2002,Clifford2004a).Thenewscalesandperformancesofidentityare “calledout,”byhegemonicstructuresofmanagedmulticulturalism.Yet thenewidentificationsalsotransformandtranslatedeep,ifnotalways continuous, local roots (Friedman 1993). The range of phenomena sometimeslumpedtogetheras“identitypolitics”includesprocessesof interpellation,performativity,translation,andpoliticalstrategy.When associatingnewtribalidentificationswithdisplacedpopulationsitis criticaltorecognizethespecificityandflexibilityofnativelandedness, expansivesensesof“place”evokedbyGegeo.Large-scaletribalidentities canremaininclosearticulationwithotherlevelsofaffiliationandwith homelands,bothgeographicallyandsociallydefined. Atatimewhenmenandwomengofromandcomebacktotheirhome villages in greater numbers for longer periods of time, the villages themselvestakeonspecialimportance.Personhoodand“placehood”are closelyintertwinedincontemporaryYup’iklife.Althoughapersondoes not need uninterrupted residence on the land for that relationship to continue,theexistenceofthehomelandisatthecoreofcontemporary Yup’ikidentity.(Fienup-Riordan2000:156)
Thisperspectiveisechoedinthefinalsentencesof“Yup’iksintheCity,” anarticlebyradiojournalistJohnActivethatisincludedinHunting Tradition. Active suggests something of the performativity of native identityinurbansettings:“Allinall,Anchorageisafunplacetovisit, butIwouldn’twanttolivethere.Besides,thepavementistoohard onmyankles,andIalwayshavetoprovemyYup’icitytothekass’aqs [whitepeople]”(Active2000:182). Asthisviewofthecityand“Yup’icity”suggests,differentkindsof performancearerequiredinspecificrelationalsites.ForActive,thecity isaniceplacetovisit,butalsoaplaceofuncomfortableencounters andcoercedperformances.ForotherYupiititfeelslikeanextension ofhome.Forothers(oratdifferenttimes)itisanexcitingnewplace tobranchout.Fienup-Riordanclearlyinsiststhat“theexistenceofthe homelandisatthecoreofcontemporaryYup’ikidentity”(2000:184), butshealsorejectsanylinearprogressionbetweenruralandurban, oldandnew,performativesites.Tribaldiasporaisnotaconditionof exile,ofobstructedreturn;itismoremultiplex,relational,andproductive (cf. Darnell’s account of traditional Algonquian “semi-nomadic” social structure, “a process of subsistence-motivated expansion and contraction,”sustainedandtranslatedinnewhistoricalcontexts1999:
212
James Clifford
91). Fienup-Riordan offers concrete examples of ways that contacts withvillages(kinties)andland(subsistenceactivities)aresustained by urban Yup’iks from a connected distance that is not that of an émigréoranexile.ResearchonIndiancommunitiesintheSanFrancisco Bay area by Native American scholars Kurt Peters 1995 and Renya Ramirezinpressechoesthiscomplexexperienceofnetworkingand multiattachment. The language of “diaspora” (in its recent versions overlappingwithparadigmsofextendedborderlandsandmigrantcycles) renderssomethingofthesemobile,multipolar,practicesofbelonging. “Transmigrants,”whocreateandsustainveryparticular“transnational communities”mightseemamoreexactanalogue(e.g.,Levitt2001). Butalthoughhereisconsiderableoverlap,thenewlyarticulatedsense of tribal identification at something like a national scale combined withrenewedyearningsforareturntotraditionandland,aremore suggestiveofdiasporas. * * * Nosingleanalyticlanguagecanexhaustwhatisatstakeinthesecomplexly rooted and routed experiences. Diaspora discourse is good at keepingmultisited,multiscaledpredicamentsinviewandresistingteleological narratives of transformation. It acknowledges but does not adequatelyanalyzethepolitical,economic,andsocialforcesatwork incontemporarydisplacements:historiesofviolentdispossession,the material push–pull of labor mobility, collective strategies of circular migration, individual flights from oppressive social conditions, consumeristdesires,thelureofthemodern,and“development.”Obviously, thesocioculturalconnectionssustainedindiasporanetworkscannot compensatefor,thoughtheymaymakemorelivable,thepovertyand racial exclusions typically suffered by indigenous people. Moreover, thereisan“indigenous”specificitythateludesdiaspora’scentralemphasis on displacement, loss, and deferred desire for the homeland. Peoplewhoidentifyasfirstnations,aboriginal,ortribalsharehistories ofhavingbeeninvadedanddispossessedwithinfairlyrecentmemory. Manycurrentlydwelleitheronreducedparcelsoftheirformerterritory ornearby.Thefeelingthatonehasneverleftone’sdeepancestralhome isstrong,bothasalivedrealityandasaredemptivepoliticalmyth. Thisaffectsthewaysspaceandtimeareexperienced,distancesandconnectionslived.Urban-basedYup’it,asunderstoodbyFienup-Riordan, arenotsomuchdisplacedfromahomelandasextensionsofit.She pointstosimilarpatternsforotherAlaskanativegroups.Thus,itisnot
VarietiesofIndigenousExperience:Diasporas,Homelands,Sovereignties 213
aquestionofthecenterholdingornot,butratheroneofopenended socialnetworkssustainingtransformedconnectionstolandandkin, Thetribalhome—itsanimals,plants,socialgatherings,sharedfoods, ancestors,andspiritualpowers—isnotimaginedfromadistance.Itis activated,“practiced”(DeCerteau1984),mademeaningfulinarange ofsitesbyseasonalrituals,socialgatherings,visits,andsubsistenceactivities.“Diasporic”nativesaremorelikeoffshootsthanbrokenbranches. Nodoubtthisisanidealization.Negativeexperiencesofexile,poverty, alienation from family, despair, loss of language and tradition, endlesslydeferredreturns,nostalgia,andyearning,arecertainlypartof thevariedexperiencesofnativepeopleslivinginsettingsremovedfrom theirhomelands.Thephysicalseparationanddifferentknowledgebases of“diaspora”and“local”peoplescannotalwaysbebridgedbykinties, exchanges,andpoliticalalliances.Thepoliticsofcultureandidentityat new“tribal,”regional,andinternationalscalescannotavoidfailed,or verypartial,translationbetweensitesandgenerations,socialexclusions, tests for racial purity and cultural authenticity. New leaders, culture brokers,andeconomicelites,newdependenciesongovernmental,corporate,academic,andphilanthropicresourcesareinextricablypartof the processes by which extended indigenous connections are being made.Fienup-Riordan’sYup’ik“worldwideweb”isbothadescription and a hope that cannot be automatically generalized. Yup’iit, who enjoyrelativelystrongongoingconnectionswithlanguage,land,and tradition,areabletosustainsocialtiesacrossanenlargedspace.And inthisrootedexperienceofroutes,theyrepresentoneexamplefroma spectrumofdecenteredindigenousstories.Yetifthelocallygrounded “worldwideweb”inFienup-Riordan’saccountisanidealization,itisnot adelusion.Foritdescribesestablishednativepracticesandaspirations inmanypartsoftheworldtoday.TheratherbrightYup’ikpicturewill alwaysbeshadowedbyotherrealitiesofpoverty,racialsubjugation, inferiorhealthcare,andeducation.Diasporicconsciousnessexpresses contradictory experiences of loss and hope, despair and messianism (Clifford 1994). Thus, in thinking about indigenous diasporas, one necessarilyconfrontsthedisastroushistoriesofoppressionthathave createdthemandsimultaneouslythesocioculturalconnectionsthat sustainasenseofpeoplehoodand,intangledpolitical–economicsituations,projectarooted,expansivefuture. Althoughthischapterhassuggestedsomeofthecharacteristicfeatures of“indigenousdiasporas,”ithasnotdrawnasharpcontrastwiththe experiences of other migrants and transnational dwellers. What has emergedisanuneven,overlappingrangeofexperiences,constraints,
214
James Clifford
andpossibilities.Inpractice,forthosemanyself-identifiednativeswho dwellin,andcirculatethrough,urbanandsemiurbansettings,there can be no essential, privative opposition between “indigenous” and “diasporic”experiences.Thetermsbreakdowninthecompromisesand inconsistenciesofeverydaylife.Westruggleforlanguagestorepresent thelayered,facetedrealitiesofthe“indigenous”today,withoutimposing reductive,backward-lookingcriteriaofauthenticity.Whatisatstake inthisrepresentationalstruggleisanadequaterealisminourwaysof thinkingcomparativelyaboutarangeofoldandemergenthistories. Realismisatermthatneedstobeusedcarefully.Here,itisevoked inbothitsdescriptive–historicistandpragmatic–politicalsenses.The mainproblemwithmuchdescriptiverealismisthatitprojectsitsvision ofwhatisreallythereandwhatisreallypossiblefromanunacknowledgedvantagepointintimeandspace.Soonerorlater,“full,”“realistic” accountsofhistoricaldevelopment,modernity,progress,Westernization, capitalism,andnationalliberationwillbesituated(Haraway1988),or provincialized(Chakrabarty2000)bytheemergenceofnewhistorical subjects.Ofcourse,someofthese“new”subjects,whoseinterventions troubleformerlysettledprojectionsofthereal,arenotnew(recently invented)butformerlysilenced,marginalizedpeopleswho,inspecific conditions,attainawidelyrecognizedpresenceorvoice.Thecontinuity (Friedman1993)andethnogenesis(Hill1996)atworkintheseprocesses ofsurvivalandemergenceincludepoliticalarticulations,conjunctural performances,andpartialtranslations(Clifford2004a).Newhistorical subjects(inthepresentcontext,thoselooselylabeled“indigenous”)are seenandheardintranslocalcircuits,exertingenoughpoliticalpressure tomakethemmorethanmarginalactorsinabroadhistoricalfieldof forces. Historical(historicizedandtranslated)realismdoesnotprojectone syntheticbigstory.Itworkswithopenended(becauselinearhistorical timeisontologicallyunfinished)“bigenoughstories,”sitesofcontact, struggle, and dialog (Clifford 2002). What counts as a big enough story—representingaforce,happening,orpresencethat“matters”— is not something that can be finally decided by scholarly expertise, cultural,orpoliticalauthority.Everyprojectionof“thereal,”however diverse,contestedorpolythetic,presupposesexclusionandforgetting: constitutiveoutsides,silences,orspectersfromunburiedpaststhatcan reemergeas“realistic”inconjuncturesoremergencieseithercurrently unimaginableorutopian(Benjamin1969).Thecurrentpersistenceand renaissanceofsomanydifferentsmall-scaletribalandnativesocieties rearticulatedunderthesignofthe“indigenous”isjustsuchacritique
VarietiesofIndigenousExperience:Diasporas,Homelands,Sovereignties 215
andexpansionofthehistoricallyreal.Realrefershere,simultaneously,to somethingthatactuallyexistsandthathasafutureinanonteleological postmodernity. Inthisperspective,thepresentchapterquestionsaconceptualopposition (diaspora vs. indigenous) that has impeded understanding of how native peoples have reckoned with experiences of genocide, materialdispossession,forcedassimilation,political,cultural,racial,and economicmarginality,opportunitiesforchangeandreidentification. (DelaCadena2000,doessimilarworkbyopeningupoftheopposition orindioandmestizo.)Thiskindofrealismforegroundscomplexhistories: thesyncreticexperiencesofdiversenativeChristians;or“travels”with BuffaloBill,onwhalingships,ascoercedandcontractlaborers;orthe workofAboriginalsoncattlestations,Mayansincoffeeplantations, Indiansonhighsteel;orthebroadrangeof“urbanindigenous”experiences.Thisperspectivestrugglesforalucidambivalencewithrespect totribalengagementswithtourism,withcapitalistdevelopment,with museumsandartmarkets.Itviewstheseactivitiesas“historicalpractices”integralto“traditionalfutures”(Clifford2004b).This,likeany realism,isdeployedataparticularmomentandfromaspecificlocation. Recognizingone’sownstandpointis,ofcourse,difficult.Otherscan be counted on to help, not always generously. The present chapter maybecriticizedasoverlyinvestedintheinteractive,spliced,spatially dispersedaspectsoftribalornativelivesattheexpenseofcontinuities inplace,kinship,language,andtradition.Andthisemphasismaybe read as unfriendly to the necessary essentialist claims of nationalist movements for independence and sovereignty. There is warrant for thisreading.Thechapterdoesarguethatindigenoushistoricalexperiences are layered and fundamentally relational, that ethnically or racially absolute assertions foreshorten lived reality and foreclose crucialpossibilities.Diasporahasnot,however,beenproposedasan alternative or cure for strong identity claims. Diasporic dimensions areunderstoodasaspectsofanuneven,continuumofattachments. Strongalternateclaimstoautochthony,localism,andculturalorracial essenceareequallypartoftheprocess.Indeed,groupsandindividuals migratebetweentheseapparentlycontradictorypositionsdepending onsituation,audience,orpragmaticgoals.Anadequaterealismneeds to grasp specific interactions of diasporic–cosmopolitan and autochthonous–nationalistexperiences—ongoinghistoricaldialoguesand tensionsperformedunderthecontestedsignof“indigeneity”.(Foran exemplarystudy,whichkeepsthesedialoguesandtensionsinview,see Mallon2005,“Samoantatauasglobalpractice.”)
216
James Clifford
Itisnotsimplyamatterofricher“historicist”description:tellingitas itwasorlikeitis.Realismhasinescapablepoliticalandevenprophetic dimensions,foritprefigureswhatdoesanddoesnothavea“real”chance ofmakingadifference.Theaspirationsofindigenousmovementstoday for self-determination and sovereignty reflect an altered balance of forces,apost-1960sshiftinwhatmay,incertaincircumstances,and withoutguarantees,bepossible.Muchisemergingunderthesignof indigenoussovereignty,andtheterm’srangeofpracticalmeaningsis difficulttocircumscribe,takingintoaccountspecificlocalandnational contexts as well as uneven conditions of “globalization.” Exercised and negotiated at different scales, sovereignty’s meanings today are differentfromthoseprojectedatthetreatyofWestphaliaorimposed byLouisXIVandNapoleon.Andtheyexceedthevisionsofintegration andindependenceassociatedwitheitherWilsonianinternationalism oranticolonialnationalliberation.Sturm’s(2002)subtleexploration oftheGramscian“contradictoryconsciousness”thathashistorically madeandremadeanirreduciblydiverse“CherokeeNation”isacase in point. Indigenous sovereignty, in its current range of meanings, includesthe“domesticdependentnation”statusofNativeAmericans, thesemi-independenceofNunavut,thenationalstatusofVanuatu(and itstransnationaltaxshelters),thebiculturalpolityemerginginAotearoa/ NewZealand,thecrossborderinstitutionsoftheSaami,thefederalism ofNewCaledonia’sMatignonandNoumeaAccords,the“corporate” institutions of Native Alaskans, the broad range of agreements that governusesofAboriginalcountryinAustralia,andintensifyingstruggles aroundnaturalresourcesand“culturalproperty.” RogerMaakaandAugieFlerasexplorethis“proliferationofsovereignty discourses” arguing that they do not reproduce the 19th-century modelsunderlyingsettler-colonialstates.Thecurrentdiscoursesexpress “patternsofbelongingthataccentuateasovereigntywithoutsecession, involvingmodelsofrelativeyetrelationalautonomyinnon-coercive contexts”(MaakaandFleras2000:93,108).Indigenousmovements take advantage of interstitial possibilities, failures and openings withinnational–transnationalgovernmentalstructuresof“graduated sovereignty” (Ong 2000). James Tully, drawing on Taiaake Alfred’s trenchant Mohawk vision (see Brown this volume), sees indigenous socialmovementsnotasstrugglesforfreedom(intheoldersenseof absolute independence, but as “struggles of freedom to modify the systemofinternalcolonizationfromwithin”(Tully2000:58).Charles Hale(2002),inhisGramscianassessmentofMayansocialmovements, unevenlyarticulatedwithneoliberalmulticulturalism,comestoasimilar
VarietiesofIndigenousExperience:Diasporas,Homelands,Sovereignties 217
conclusion.Attainingformalindependencedoesnotnecessarilychange thesituation,asthepredicamentofPacificmicrostatesstrugglingto reconcilecultural–politicalautonomywitheconomic(inter)dependence shows(BensaandWittersheim1998).“Sovereignty,”understoodasa rangeofcurrentpractices,evokespragmaticpossibilitiesandstructural limits. Thomas Biolsi’s (2005) analysis of four distinct sovereignty claimscurrentlymadebyNativeAmericansisapointedreminderof this strategic complexity, as is Andrea Muehlebach’s (2001) account ofmobile“place-making”instrugglesforself-determinationandsovereigntyattheUnitedNations. Within each context, appeals to all-or-nothing (“ideological”) sovereignty combine and alternate with negotiated (“pragmatic”) sovereignty.Anonreductiveassessmentofthehistoricallypossible,a politicalandpropheticrealism,recognizesthisnecessaryalternation andtacticalflexibility.Withoutradicalvisionsandmaximalistclaims indigenousmovementsriskcooptation.Withoutadhocarrangements andcoalitions,inwhicheconomicandmilitarypowerremainoverwhelminglyunequal,littlecanbegainedintheshortterm.Andtherisk ofbacklashisgreat.Oneofthevalues,perhaps,ofbringingdiaspora intothecomplexdomainoftheindigenousistoimportaconstitutive ambivalence.Diasporicexperienceisnecessarilybothnationalistand antinationalist.Absolutistinvocationsofblood,land,andreturncoexist withtheartsofconviviality,theneedtomakehomesawayfromhome, among different peoples. Diasporic ruptures and connections—lost homelands,partialreturns,relationalidentities,andworld-spanning networks—are fundamental components of indigenous experience today.
Note 1. The present chapter expands and refocuses a paper, “Indigenous Diasporas,” forthcoming in Diasporas: Après quinze années de ferveur, edited by William Berthomière and Christine Chivallon. Paris: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme. The volume collects papers from a conference, “La Notion de Diaspora,”Poitiers,May15–16,2003.Ithanktheorganizersandparticipants forstimulatingdiscussions,inacontextofcomparativediasporas.Iamalso gratefultoOrinStarnandMarisoldelaCadena,aswellastoparticipantsin
218
James Clifford
the Wenner-Gren Conference, “Indigenous Experience Today,” who helped mefindmywaythroughadifferentcomparativelandscape.
References Active,John.2000.Yup’iksinthecity.InHuntingtraditioninachanging world,editedbyAnneFienup-Riordan,169–182.NewBrunswick,NJ: RutgersUniversityPress. Anderson,Benedict.1998.LongDistanceNationalism.InThespectre of comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia, and the world, 58–74. London:Verso. Ang,Ien.2001.Indonesiaonmymind.InOnnotspeakingChinese:Living betweenAsiaandtheWest,52–74.London:Routledge. Benjamin,Walter.1969.Thesesonthephilosophyofhistory.InIlluminations,editedbyHannahArendt,256–265.NewYork:Schocken. Bensa,Alban,andEricWittersheim.1998.NationalismandInterdependence:ThePoliticalThoughtofJean-MarieTjibaou.Contemporary Pacific10(2):369–391. Biolsi,Thomas.2005.Imaginedgeographies:Sovereignty,indigenous space,andAmericanIndianstruggles.AmericanEthnologist32(2): 239–259. Brah,Avtar.1996.Cartographiesofdiaspora:Contestingidentities.London: Routledge. Brown,Michael.2003.Whoownsnativeculture?Cambridge,MA:Harvard UniversityPress. Calloway, Colin.1990. TheWesternAbenakisof Vermont,1600–1800: War,migration,andthesurvivalofanIndianpeople.Norman:University ofOklahomaPress. Chakrabarty,Dipesh.2000.ProvincializingEurope:Postcolonialthought andhistoricaldifference.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPres. Chappell,David.1997.Doubleghosts:OceanianvoyagersonEuroamerican ships.ArmonkNY:M.E.Sharpe. Christen, Kimberley. 2004. Properly Warumungu: Indigenous futuremaking in a remote Australian town. Ph.D. dissertation, History of ConsciousnessDepartment,UniversityofCalifornia,SantaCruz. Clifford,James.1988.IdentityinMashpee.InThepredicamentofculture, 277–346.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress. ——.1994.Diasporas.CulturalAnthropology9(3):302–338.Reprintedin Routes(1997),244–278.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress. ——.2001.IndigenousArticulations.ContemporaryPacific13(2):468– 490.
VarietiesofIndigenousExperience:Diasporas,Homelands,Sovereignties 219
——.2002. Post-neo colonial situations: Notes on historical realism today. In Literatura e viagens pós-coloniais (ACT, No. 6), edited by Helena Carvalhão Buescu and Manuela Reibeiro Sanches, 9–32. Lisbon:EdiçõesColibri. ——.2004a.Lookingseveralways:Anthropologyandnativeheritage inAlaska.CurrentAnthropology45(1):5–30. ——.2004b. Traditional Futures. In Questions of tradition, edited by MarkPhillipsandGordonSchochet,152–168.Toronto:University ofTorontoPress. Cohen,Robin.1997.Globaldiasporas:Anintroduction.London:University CollegeLondonPress. Curtis, Tim. 2002. Talking about place: Identities, histories and powers amongtheNa’HaispeakersofMalakula(Vanuatu).Ph.D.dissertation, DepartmentofAnthropology,TheAustralianNationalUniversity. Darnell, Regna. 1999. Rethinking the concepts of band and tribe, community and nation: An accordion model of nomadic Native Americansocialorganization.PapersoftheTwenty-NinthAlgonquian Conference/Actes du congres des Algonquinistes, 90–105. Winnipeg: UniversityofManitoba. DeCerteauMichel.1984.Thepracticeofeverydaylife.Berkeley:University ofCaliforniaPress. delaCadena,Marisol.2000.Indigenousmestizos:Thepoliticsofraceand cultureinCuzco,1919–1991.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress. Diaz,Vicente,andKehaulaniKauanui,eds.2001.SpecialIssue:“Native Pacificculturalstudiesattheedge,”ContemporaryPacific13(2). Dombrowski,Kirk.2002.ThepraxisofindigenismandAlaskaNative timberpolitics.AmericanAnthropologist104:1062–1073. Fienup-Riordan,Ann.1990.Eskimoessays:Yup’iklivesandhowwesee them.NewBrunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress. ——.2000.Huntingtraditioninachangingworld.NewBrunswick,NJ: RutgersUniversityPress. Flores,William,andRinaBenmayor,eds.1997.Latinoculturalcitizenship: Claimingidentity,space,andrights.Boston:BeaconPress. Friedman, Jonathan. 1993. Will the real Hawaiian please stand: Anthropologists and natives in the global struggle for identity. Bijdragen: Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast AsiaandOceania(Leiden),49(4):737–767. Fujikane,Candace,andJonathanOkamura,eds.2000.Specialissue: “Whose vision? Asian settler colonialism in Hawai`i,” Amerasia Journal26(2).
220
James Clifford
Gegeo,DavidWelchman.1998.Indigenousknowledgeandempowerment: Ruraldevelopmentexaminedfromwithin.ContemporaryPacific10 (2):289–315. ——.2001. Cultural rupture and Indigeneity: The challenge of (re)visioning “place” in the Pacific. Contemporary Pacific 13 (2): 491– 508. Ghere,David.1993.The“disappearance”oftheAbenakiinwestern Maine:Politicalorganizationandethnocentricassumptions.American IndianQuarterly17:193–207. Giddens,Anthony.1990[1983].TheConsequencesofmodernity.Cambridge:PolityPress. Gidwani,Vinay,andK.Sivaramakrishnan.2003.Circularmigrationand thespacesofculturalassertion.AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmerican Geographers93(1):186–213. Gilroy,Paul.1993.TheblackAtlantic:Doubleconsciousnessandmodernity. Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress. Gossen,Gary.1999.IndiansinsideandoutsideoftheMexicannational idea: A case study of the modern diaspora of San Juan Chamula. In Telling Maya tales: Tzotzil identities in modern Mexico, 189–208. London:Routledge.(OriginallypublishedinSpanish,1983) Glick-Schiller,Nina.1995.Fromimmigranttotransmigrant:Theorizing transnationalmigration.AnthropologicalQuarterly68(1):48–63. Hale, Charles. 2002. Does multiculturalism menace? Governance, culturalrightsandthepoliticsofidentityinGuatemala.Journalof LatinAmericanStudies34:485–524. Hall,Stuart.1989.Newethnicities.InBlackfilm,Britishcinema,edited byKobenaMercer,27–30.London:InstituteofContemporaryArt. ——.1990. Cultural identity and diaspora. In Identity, community, culture,difference,editedbyJonathanRutherford,222–237.London: LawrenceandWishart. Haraway,Donna.1988.Situatedknowledges:Thesciencequestionin feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14(1):167–181. Harmon, Alexandra. 1998. Indians in the making: Ethnic relations and IndianidentitiesaroundPugetSound.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia Press. Hill,Jonathan,ed.1996.History,power,andidentity:Ethnogenesisinthe Americas,1492–1992.IowaCity:UniversityofIowaPress. Kastoriano,Riva,2003.Diaspora,transnationalismandthestate.Paper presented at the La Notion de Diaspora conference, Maison des Sciencesdel’Homme,Poitiers,May16th.
VarietiesofIndigenousExperience:Diasporas,Homelands,Sovereignties 221
Kauanui, Kehaulani. 1999. Off-island Hawaiians “making” ourselves at “home”: A [gendered] contradiction in terms? Women’s Studies InternationalForum21(6):681–693. Lambert, Michael. 2002. Longing for exile: Migration and the making of a translocal community in Senegal, West Africa. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Levitt,Peggy.2001.Thetransnationalvillagers.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress. Lilley,Ian.2004.Diasporaandidentityinarchaeology:Movingbeyond theblackAtlantic.InAcompaniontosocialarchaeology,editedbyL. MeskellandR.Preucel,287–312.Oxford:Blackwell. ——.2006.Archaeology,diasporaanddecolonization.JournalofSocial Archaeology6(1):28–47. Maaka, Roger, and Augie Fleras. 2000. Engaging with indigeneity: TinoRangatiratangainAotearoa.InPoliticaltheoryandtherightsof indigenouspeoples,editedbyDuncanIvison,PaulPatton,andWill Sanders,89–111.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Mallon,Sean.2005.Samoantatauasglobalpractice.InTatoo:Bodies, artandexchangeinthePacificandtheWest,editedbyNicolasThomas, Anna Cole, and Bronwen Douglas, 145–170. London: Reaktion Books. Merlan,Francesca.1997.Fightingovercountry:Fourcommonplaces. InFightingovercountry:Anthropologicalperspectives,CAEPRResearch monograph, 12: 4–15. Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policyresearch,TheAustralianNationalUniversity. ——.1998.Cagingtherainbow:Places,politics,andAboriginesinaNorth Australiantown.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai`iPress. Mishra,Vijay.1996a.TheDiasporicimaginary:TheorizingtheIndian diaspora.TextualPractice10(3):421–447. ——.1996b. (B)ordering Naipaul: Indenture history and diasporic poetics.Diaspora5(2):189–237. Mitchell,Joseph.1960.MohawksinHighSteel.InApologiestotheIroquois, edited by Edmund Wilson, 3–38. New York: Vintage. (Originally publishedinTheNewYorker,1959) Muehlebach, Andrea. 2001. “Making place” at the United Nations: IndigenousculturalpoliticsattheU.N.WorkingGrouponIndigenous Populations.CulturalAnthropology16(3):415–448. Niezen,Ronald.2003.TheOriginsofindigenism:Humanrightsandthe politicsofidentity.Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Ong,Aihwa.1999.Flexiblecitizenship:Theculturallogicsoftransnationality. Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress.
222
James Clifford
——.2000.GraduatedsovereigntyinSouth-EastAsia.Theory,Culture andSociety17(4):55–75. Peel,J.D.Y.1978.Olajú:AYorubaconceptofdevelopment.Journalof DevelopmentStudies14:139–165. Peters, Kurt. 1995. Santa Fe Indian Camp, House 21, Richmond California: Persistence of Identity among Laguna Pueblo Railroad Laborers, 1945–1982. American Indian Culture and Research Journal 19(3):33–70. Phillips, Ruth. 1998. Trading identities: The souvenir in Native North American art from the Northeast, 1700–1900. Seattle: University of WashingtonPress. Piot, Charles. 1999. Remotely global: Village modernity in West Africa, Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress. Rafael,Vicente.1898.Imaginationandimagery:Filipinonationalismin the19thcentury.Inscriptions5:25–48.(CenterforCulturalStudies, UniversityofCalifornia,SantaCruz) Ramirez,Renya.inpress.Nativehubs:Culture,community,andbelonging inSiliconValleyandbeyond.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress. Rigsby, Bruce. 1995. Tribes, diaspora people and the vitality of law andcustom:Somecomments.InAnthropologyinthenativetitleera: Proceeedingsofaworkshop,editedbyJimFingletonandJulieFinlayson, 25–27.Canberra:AustralianInstituteofAboriginalandTorresStraits IslanderStudies. Rouse,Roger.1991.Mexicanmigrationandthesocialspaceofpostmodernism.Diaspora1(1):8–23. Sahlins,Marshall.1989.Cosmologiesofcapitalism:Thetrans-Pacific sectorof“theworldsystem.”ProceedingsoftheBritishAcademy74: 1–51.(ReprintedinCultureinPractice[2000]:415–469.NewYork: ZoneBooks.) ——.1993. Goodbye to tristes tropes: Ethnography in the context of modernworldeconomy.JournalofModernHistory65:1–25.(Reprinted inCultureinPractice[2000]:471–500.NewYork:ZoneBooks.) ——.1999. What is anthropological enlightenment? Some lessons ofthetwentiethcentury.AnnualReviewofAnthropology28:i–xxiii. (Reprinted in Culture in Practice [2000]: 501–526. New York: Zone Books.) Smith,BenjaminRichard.2000.“Local”and“diaspora”connections tocountryandkininCentralCapeYorkPeninsula.InLand,rights, laws:Issuesofnativetitle,vol.2,issue6,editedbyJessicaWeir,1–8. Canberra:AustralianInstituteofAboriginalandTorresStraitsIslander Studies.
VarietiesofIndigenousExperience:Diasporas,Homelands,Sovereignties 223
Sturm,Circe.2002.Bloodpolitics:Pace,cultureandidentityintheCherokee NationofOklahoma.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Sutton,Peter.1988.Mythashistory,Historyasmyth.InBeingblack: Aboriginalculturesin“settled”Australia,editedbyIanKeen,251–268. Canberra:AboriginalStudiesPress. Swain,Tony.1993.APlaceforStrangers:TowardsaHistoryofAustralian AboriginalBeing.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Teaiwa,Teresia.2001.Militarism,tourismandthenative:Articulationsin Oceania.Ph.D.dissertation,HistoryofConsciousnessDepartment, UniversityofCalifornia,SantaCruz. Tsing,Anna.2000.TheGlobalSituation.CulturalAnthropology15(3): 327–360. Tully, James. 2000. The Struggles of indigenous peoples for and of freedom.InPoliticaltheoryandtherightsofindigenouspeoples,edited byDuncanIvison,PaulPatton,andWillSanders,36–59.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. Weiner,James.2000.Diaspora,materialism,tradition:Anthropological issuesintherecentHighCourtappealoftheYortaYorta.InLand, rights,laws:Issuesofnativetitle,vol.2,issue6,editedbyJessicaWeir, 1–12.Canberra:AustralianInstituteofAboriginalandTorresStraits IslanderStudies.
This page intentionally left blank
e i g h t
Diasporic Media and Hmong/Miao Formulations of Nativeness and Displacement Louisa Schein
F
or Hmong/Miao scattered across the globe, a common identity is typically posited through shared narratives of displacement. A collectionofhistoricalmomentsarethreadedtogetherbythethemeof lossoflands:BeginningincentralChina,Hmong/Miaoweredislodged southwardovercenturiesbyhostileChinese,eventuallymigratinginto SoutheastAsiawherethoseinvolvedontheU.S.sideintheVietnam warwereuprootedfromLaostoThailand,andeventuallyrelocatedto Westerncountries.“Hmonghaveneverhadacountry.”“Hmongare seminomadic.”“Hmongpeoplearealwaysonthemove.”“Welostour country.”Thesearethetropesthathavebeenusedbythemselvesand othersascharacterizationsofHmong/Miaooverthecenturies.Howto thinktheseidentitymotifsinrelationtothethemeofindigeneity?While thenotionitselfhasnotbeentakenupintheseself-characterizations, theunjustexpropriationofnativelandsisadiscoursesharedwiththose whowouldidentifythemselvesasindigenouspeoples.Indeed,asJames Clifford holds (this volume), in cases in which indigenous peoples wereforcedordrawnintocitiesandtowns,“theconnectiontolost homelandscomesclosertoadiasporicrelation,withitscharacteristic formsoflonging,longdistancenationalismanddisplacedperformances of‘heritage.’”AndreBeteille,however,iscautiouslyskeptical,charging anthropologists with overusing the indigenous category because it arousestheir“moralexcitation”andasking“Howwidelycanpeople moveandstillretaintheentitlementofbeingindigenousforthemselves
225
226
Louisa Schein
andtheirdescendants?”(1998:190).Givensuchdiscrepantviewsof distanceandmobility,whatcanbegainedbybringingdiasporicand indigenousidentitymotifsintodialogue? Mypointofentryforthischapteristhetranslocalrelationsbetween HmongAmericansandtheircoethnicsinSoutheastAsiaandinChina (wheretheyarecalledMiao).1Whatisstrikingaboutthecontemporary era—sinceacohortofperhaps200,000Hmongtookupresidencein theUnitedStatesasrefugeesbeginningin1975—isthatthemigration trajectoryenshrinedasunidirectionalintheexilicnarrativehasbecome multidirectionalinpractice.Inotherwords,HmongintheUnitedStates, alongwiththoseinFranceandAustralia,havebeenintheposition toreversedirection,totravel“back”totheirrememberedhomelands. No longer is Hmong/Miao diaspora the singular process of a people spreadingoutwardfromtheepicenterthatwasChina.Whatthemost recentmoveshaveenabledisacrisscrossingoftheglobe,withthose Hmongprivilegedtohaveaccumulatedresourcesandtraveldocuments insomeoftheworld’swealthiestcountriesjourneyingwithfrequency toChina,Laos,Thailand,andevenVietnamandBurma. Hmong/Miao social intercourse now takes place at a global scale, ratherthanonlywithinlocalitiesornationalboundaries.Andspatial subjectivitieshaveshiftedaccordingly.NotonlydoHmonginWestern countriesthinkofthemselvesaslinkedand—forsome—shuttlingback andforthtoAsianhomelands,butthosewhohosttheminAsiaare alsocomingtoperceivetheirlivesasimbricatedwiththeiroverseas coethnics. The types of engagement are numerous. Some Hmong émigrés travel back to tour, usually visiting relatives along the way. Somearepursuingtransnationalbusinessventures,suchasimportsor mediaproductions,aboutwhichIwillhaveagreatdealtosaypresently. Somearelookingforsexualtrystsormarriagepartners.Indeed,theflow ofbridestotheWesthascreatedasetofdurableaffinaltiesthatfurther solidifythetransnationalcharacterofHmong/Miaosociallife.Finally, inadditiontoactualtravelingbodies,therehasalsobeenaconstant flowofremittancesfromrelativesintheWesttokininAsia. Inthelasttwodecades,HmongAmericansatthefarthestreachof thediaspora,then,havebeguntoengageinactivitiesofreterritorializationastheyrecuperatepasts,roots,andhomelandsthroughconcrete practices of trans-Pacific travel and business. Certain places, even as theyareincreasinglytransectedbytheflowsofpersonsfromabroad, arebecomingfixed,evenfrozen,inmemoryandinculturalproduction asiconsofpureHmongorigins.Theseoriginplacesareportrayedas landslegitimatelyoccupiedbyHmong/Miaooverhistory,landsfrom
DiasporicMediaandHmong/MiaoFormulationsofNativenessandDisplacement 227
which they were unwillingly wrenched away by war and exile. Yet inthememorypracticesthroughwhichinvoluntarydisplacementis elaborated,thenotionofindigeneityhasnotcomeintoplay. In this chapter I offer an analysis of powered “relational” and gendered place making and constructions of nativeness among the Hmong/Miaothroughthelensoftheirburgeoningmediapractices.2 Since the early 1990s, I have documented the Hmong media scene, collectingnearly250videosaswellassomeaudiotapes,interviewing directorsandaudiences,visitingsitesofdistribution,andwatchingand interpretingvideosalongsideHmongconsumers.Focusingonvideo, myethnographyencompassesboththeproduction–consumptionof formsofgrassrootsmediaaboutAsiabyHmongintheWestandthe ethnotextualanalysisofthecontentsofcertainmediatexts. Here, I explore how Hmong media produce, comment on, and processbothemergingtranslocalismsandtherememberedplacesthat HmongintheWesthailfrom.Imakethemethodologicalargument that an understanding of Hmong/Miao reterritorialization practices must encompass not only consideration of representations of lost lands,butalsoinvestigationofthematerialprocessesandrelationsof mediaproductionthatgiverisetosuchrepresentations.Ishowthat botharecharacterizedbyagenderedregimeinwhichhomelandsare feminized.AndIsuggestthattheabsenceofaddresstoexternalpowers inHmongtransnationalpracticemayshedlightontheirindifference tothecategoryoftheindigenous.
NarratingLossofLand IncomparingHmong,astheyarecalledinSoutheastAsiaandtheWest, withMiao,astheyarecalledinChina,oneseesapredictableintensificationofnarrativesofdisplacementandexilethefurtheronegets fromChina.IntheeasternpartofChina’sGuizhouprovince,where Ihavedoneextensivefieldwork,Miaopeasantshavetilledthesame fieldsforseveralcenturiesandhaveasenseofthemselvesaslegitimately occupyingtheirlands.Nonetheless,thisisanuneasylegitimacy,always crosscutbyMiaohistoriesofconflictwiththeChineseimperium.Inthe presentday,theancientstruggleoverlandshasbeenreplacedwiththe marginalityofminoritystatus.ThelateMaoistperiodimplementeda householdregistrationsystemthateffectivelytiedallChinesecitizens totheirplacesofbirthandprohibitedmigration,thuslegallyencoding Miaoentitlementtothelandstheyoccupied.Butatthesametimethe erainstitutionalizedaminoritypolicythatfrozeidentityaseitherHan
228
Louisa Schein
ornot,withtheHanconstitutingover90percentofthepopulation, and the 55 minority nationalities framed as less advanced and less worthyofofficialpositions. Outsidethepurviewoftheso-calledMiaopale,aregioninHunan andeasternGuizhouprovinceswhereMiaoresideingreatdensityof populationandhaveforcenturies,narrativesaboutlandshiftdramatically.EvenwithinChina,intheborderregionsofYunnanandGuangxi provincesabuttingVietnamandLaos,Miaoportraythemselvesaslatecomers to the land, and as occupying the least arable, most forbidding,steepest,mostisolatedsectorsofwhateverregiontheyinhabit. Theyexplaintheireconomicmarginalitypreciselythroughtheaccount of exilic flight that deposited them in their current dwellings long afterthelowerandbetterirrigatedlandwasalreadyoccupied.Inthe mountainsofVietnam,Laos,Thailand,andBurma,suchself-portrayals asinterlopers,assojournersonlandthatwasnevergrantedtothem, butonwhichlowlanderstoleratedHmongresidence,areubiquitous. ThoseHmongofLaoswhohadassistedtheU.S.SecretWarduringthe Vietnameraandwereexiledonceagainbytheirpoliticalvulnerability afterU.S.withdrawalin1975,recountanevenmoreinvoluntaryflight. ThattheyhavebeenuneasilyaccommodatedintheWest,targetedwith racist sentiment held over from the war and with more generalized anti-immigrantreactionisincompleteaccordwiththeirself-perception over the centuries as unwanted late arrivals competing for scarce resources. ThethemeofHmongasinterlopersonalreadyoccupiedlandstook astrangeandterriblehistoricaltwistinthefallof2004whenaHmong Americanman,ChaiSouaVang,shotandkilledsixhuntersinthewoods ofWisconsin.Theaccountsarecontradictory,withthewhiteAmericans maintainingthattheshootingwasunprovoked,andVangmaintaining that he was subjected to racial slurs and harassment, then fired at, beforehesnapped.Butwhatistellingisthatthereisnodisagreement thatVangwasonprivatehuntingland.AsOrecklinrecountsinTime Magazine,“whitehuntershavecomplainedthatHmongdonotrespect privateproperty.IntheNorthWoods,privateandpubliclandsabut eachother,andtheonlywaytoknowthedifferenceistoconsultmaps issued by the state or look for NO TRESPASSING signs. Landowners routinelyfindunauthorizedhuntersontheirproperty.Etiquettecallsfor askingtheinterlopertoleaveorphoningthesherifforgamewarden” (2004:37). RefractedthroughthelensofthelongueduréeofHmong/Miaomigration,itisnotdifficulttoimaginethattheconstructof“respect”for
DiasporicMediaandHmong/MiaoFormulationsofNativenessandDisplacement 229
privatepropertywouldhavebeenofdubiousmerit,aluxuryinwhich onlythecomfortablylanded,nottheHmongnomads,couldindulge. Aslongtimelatecomers,whoseoccupationofill-definedterrainswas theonlymeansoflivelihoodforgenerations,andwhoseresidencein highlandregionswaseventuallytobecomelegitimateandrecognizedby SoutheastAsianstates,itmayhavemadelittlesenseforHmonghunters toassiduouslyavoidwanderingacrosstheinvisiblelinesdemarcating private woods, especially because white hunters apparently did so routinelyaswell.Thisisnottoimplyaculturalessentialistmoveof designatingpropertysenseas“lacking”inHmongculture,butratherto suggestthepossibilityofanhistoricallyconditionedstructureoffeeling thatwouldrenderacleancounterpositionofpublicandprivateland somewhatnonsensicaltoHmongwhohadlonglivedinliminalspace. Aftertheincident,Hmongactivistsandhuntersmobilizedquicklyto counterwhatwasforeseenasanonslaughtofracialbacklashagainst them, attesting en masse to experiences of racial harassment while hunting (Moua 2004: 7). Opined one man in an editorial in the St. Paulnewspaper,theHmongTimes,“Theexampleofhunting‘without’ regulationsandprivatelandinLaoshasbeenusedtopindownanddrive theissuethatHmonghuntersdonotunderstandtheconceptofthe regulationsandrules....Throughoutthewholetragicevent,hunting hasbeenclaimedasanhistoricalWisconsintraditionpassedonfrom generationtogeneration.SurelyhuntingisintherootsofWisconsin, butwhatisfailedtobeacknowledgedisthathuntingalsohappensin otherstatesandcountries”(Xiong2004:2).3
TheProblemofIndigeneity Forapeoplesoonthemove,somultiplydisplaced,itmayseemcounterintuitive to entertain issues of indigeneity. Attachments to territory appearovertimeasephemeralforHmong/Miao,notasdefinitiveof whotheyareorwhatclaimstheycanmake.Yetthethemeofviolent andunjustcolonizationbyChinesesettlers,onethatovercenturies broketheholdHmong/Miaohadontheirterritoriesandrenderedtheir cultural practices less than hegemonic, would seem to lend itself to thisterminology.Indeed,withinthecontemporaryChinesepurview, one might especially expect activism around indigeneity to have arisenwithinTibet,wherethetie-inswithtransnationalactivistsare sodense,andwheretheterritoryhasmoreofaconstantassociation withTibetans.Yet,asseeninEmilyYeh’scontributiontothisvolume, indigenousterminologyisnotprevalentinTibeteither.Theseabsences
230
Louisa Schein
pushustoentertaintheuttercontingencyofindigenousdiscourse.A morphologicalanalysisofsocialformsandhistories(relationtoland, todominantgroups,etc.)cannotaccountforthedifferentialinsertion ofminoritizedpeoplesintocircuitsoflanguageandactivismthatmay ormaynotcallouttheindigenousterm.ChineseandSoutheastAsian sites,asseenalsoinAnnaTsing’schapter(thisvolume),havetaken upthetermunevenly,andlargely,Iwouldargue,becauseofexternal or relational factors such as the specific transnational alliances that particulargroupsmayhaveformedinrecentdecades. Nonetheless,thereismuchtobelearnedfromthinkingthetransnational strategies of identity production and political mobilization withinandbeyondtheindigenouslabel.OneofthethingsHmong/Miao narrativessharewiththosemoretypicallyassociatedwithindigenous peoples is the attribute of chronic statelessness as a result of unjust expropriationofland.Thisisafundamentalorganizingprincipleof Hmong/Miaoidentities;theirfolkloredelvesingreatdepthintothe originsofthisdeprivation,usuallycitinginstancesofChinesetrickery anddeceitinancienttimesasthecause(Tapp1989).Wemight,then, thinkofindigenismornativenessmorecapaciously.AsClifford(this volume)pointsout,“therearevariouswaystobe‘native’inrelationtoa place;assumptionsoffirstnessor‘autochthony’oftenobscureimportant historiesofmovement;and‘sovereign’controlisalwayscompromised andrelative.”TheHmong/Miao,havingbeenperenniallyonthemove, emergeoutofthesedefinitionaldiscrepanciesaseschewingfirstness perse,butstillasstateless,minoritized,andsociallymarginalpeoples, in diaspora as well as in Asia. Some of the questions that could be posedinclude:WhyisitthatthoseHmongfurthestfromthelandsof origin—thatis,thoseintheWest—appeartobetheonesmostmobilized intermsofidentitypolitics?Andwhyisitthosemostfar-flungwho mostchampionterritoriesinAsiaas“homelands”?Howisitthatthose indiasporaarethemostactiveinstrivingtopreserveculturalheritage andfindwaysofconveyingittotheiryouth?Howdoesthelivedpractice oftranslocalityacrossthePacificarticulatewiththeactivitiesofplacemakingthatconsolidatecertainsitesasHmongorMiao?Andwhyhas indigeneity never become a key term in the identity productions of Hmong/Miaoanywhere? Itiselucidatingheretorereadthemuch-citeddefinitionofindigenouspeoplesbyJoseMartinezCobo,oftheUNSubcommissiononthe PreventionofDiscriminationandProtectionofMinorities:“Indigenous communities,peoplesandnationsarethosewhichhaveahistorical continuitywithpre-invasionandpre-colonialsocietiesthatdeveloped
DiasporicMediaandHmong/MiaoFormulationsofNativenessandDisplacement 231
ontheirterritories,considerthemselvesdistinctfromothersectorsof societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They formatpresentnon-dominantsectorsofsocietyandaredetermined topreserve,develop,andtransmittofuturegenerationstheirancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existenceaspeoples,inaccordancewiththeirownculturalpatterns, socialinstitutionsandlegalsystems”(Cobo1986:5).Whatemerges from this formulation is an important conceptual alliance—to be expected—betweentiesto“ancestralterritories”andthestatusofbeing “nondominant”sectorsinthepresentday.WhatIamgoingtosuggest fortheHmong/Miao,however,isthatthevicissitudesofdiasporabe consideredtheanalyticalcounterpartofinvasionandcolonization,as bothoperatetoeffectminoritizationandtoputtheinhabitationof ancestrallandsatrisk.Steepedinthememoryofbeingflung,repeatedly, fromthoselands,thedeterminationto“preserve,developandtransmit tofuturegenerations”theirethnicidentitytakesonaparticular,and particularlyacute,cast.ThoseHmongintheWestrecall,andattempt torecuperatethroughtravel,landsthatarehalfwayaroundtheworld. Distancenotwithstanding,theyrecallthemwithimmediacy,evena sentimental intimacy. They site the culture that they are in peril of losingasintactandpersistingonthoselands. Thediasporicprojectoftransmissionalsoreferencesthosespatially remoteAsianterritorieswherecultureisenvisionedtobebestpreserved. But transmission poses a dilemma: the younger generations are not aslikelytomakereturnvoyages,becauseparentsaswellaschildren arelikewisestrugglingtofashionthemselvesasmembersofwestern societies.Hmong-producedmediaaboutthehomelandscomestobe imbricatedinthisconcernforculturalintegrity,comestobeseenas akeytechnologyoftransmissionthatcaneffectabridgingofspace, the space that otherwise keeps diasporic Hmong who do not travel backfromtheirpast.Myexplorationwillshowthatotherinternecine culturalpoliticsemergefromthisbifurcationofspace.
MediaProductionandResourcePolitics Dozens of the primarily male Hmong American travelers to Asia, then,areinvolvedintheproductionofvideosthatconstitutediverse representationsofthelandstheycallhome.ThismediaentrepreneurshiphasbecomeoneofthestrategiesbywhichHmongrefugees have made their way in the neoliberal U.S. economy. Arriving in the United States, refugees, typically with limited language, job
232
Louisa Schein
skillsandcapitalbeginaswardsofthewelfarestate.Yetthisstatusis ultimately an unsustainable one because the economic milieu into whichtheyareinsertedpremisestheirmembershipinsociety,their goodcitizenship,onswift“autonomization,”ontakingresponsibility forthemselvesasademonstrationoftheir“freedom”(Burchell1996: 27–29).Hence,theyimmediatelybecomeliminal,becausetheirhost’s agenda,evenasitinitiallyextendstothemacharitablesafetynet, is,fromthemomenttheysetfootonU.S.soil,toremaketheminto “self-sufficient”contributorstotheU.S.economy.Since1975,many Hmong have supported their own resettlement process through taking up this latter role. They have taken responsibility for their livelihood not only through language and employment programs that channel Hmong into low-paying jobs in manufacturing and service;neoliberalgovernmentalitiesprivilegeinsteadtherefashioning ofrefugeesintoentrepreneurs.Independentventureshavebecome the ever more inexorable solution to underemployment given the AmericaHmonginhabit,onethat,asBourdieuandWacquanthave putit,ischaracterizedby“thegeneralizationofprecariouswagelabor andsocialinsecurity,turnedintotheprivilegedengineofeconomic activity”(2001:3).Cannyastheyareaboutthecontractionofthe welfarestate,anddeeplysavvyaboutthebetrayalsthattheUnited Statesiscapableofeversincethelatter’sprecipitouswithdrawalfrom Laos in 1975, many Hmong immigrants have not waited for their socialwelfaresafetynettobepulledoutfromunderthemorforthe tenuoussecurityoftheirmenialjobstobeshatteredbymoreoffshore relocations. They have adopted instead what has been portrayed as the hallmark of neoliberalism: “enterprise culture” (Heelas and Morris1992),specifically,thatwhichgeneratesincome withintheir own communities. Their ventures include small businesses such as restaurants,groceries,videoshops,autoshops,andlaundromats.But ofinteresthereistheproductionofmedia,whichisquitedistinctas aHmonglivelihoodstrategy. Tomyknowledge,nootherimmigrantgrouptotheUnitedStateshas undertakentoproducetheirowncommercialentertainmentvideosto theextentthatHmonghavedoneso.ItisnoteworthythatHmong/ Miaostatusasstatelessminoritieseverywheremeansthat,unlike,say, theirVietnameseorIndiancounterparts,thereisnonationalcinema intheirownlanguagetoimport.Entrepreneurshavespottedamarket, particularlyamongthosediasporicsofoldergenerations,whoremember life in the old country and, isolated in their American lives as new immigrantsalienatedbylanguage,longtoconsumesimulacraoftheir
DiasporicMediaandHmong/MiaoFormulationsofNativenessandDisplacement 233
pasts. What the trans-Pacific traveling Hmong entrepreneurs have offeredthemisanarrayofvideotapes.Thesetapes,shot,edited,and marketedallbyHmong,taketheirplaceinthecontextofahugeHmong media scene in which hundreds of newspapers, magazines, audio cassettes,CDs,musicvideos,andvideotapesareproducedandsold,all withintheHmongmarket.Videosaremadebyarangeofamateurand semiprofessionalproducers,manyofwhomhaveestablishedcompanies withnamessuchasHmongWorldProductions,AsiaVideoProductions, Vang’sInternationalVideoProductions,andS.T.UniversalVideo.The tapesareinHmonglanguageandtargetedexclusivelyforintraethnic consumption.Shrink-wrappedandusuallycopyrighted,theysellfor $10–$30apiece.TheyaremarketedatHmongfestivals,throughAsian groceriesandvideoshops,andbymailorder. Amongthislargevolumeofvideosaredramas,martialartsthrillers, documentaries of important events, performance or “music” videos ofsinginganddancing,historicalreconstructions,andAsianfeature filmsdubbedintoHmong.AmoderateproportionconcernAsianhomelandsites.TherearetapesthatportrayLaos,birthplaceofalmostall Hmong Americans and scene of the Secret War orchestrated by the CIA in which Hmong fought as guerillas during Vietnam. There are thosesetinThailand,whereHmongsojournedinrefugeecampsbefore beinggrantedpermissiontomigratetotheWest.Andtherearethose that document a mythologized land of origins in the mountains of southwestChina.Asanaggregate,theseproductscanbedistinguished bywhatLeuthold(1998:1–3)referstoas“indigenousaesthetics”:they demonstrateplaceattachmentandthroughtheircontentsandstyles theircreatorsexpresstheirbelongingandaccountabilitywithintheir communities. ItbearsemphasizingthatalthoughmuchHmongmediaproduction spanscontinents,bringingAsiaandtheWesttogetherinbothproduction relationsandincontent,itisHmongAmericanswhoareownersof themeansofproductionandwhoprofitfromtheventures.Howare Hmong/Miao abroad incorporated into video projects? On the basis of my interviews with producers and directors in the United States, thosewhogoabroadtypicallydevelopbasesofoperationsinThailand, sometimesinLaos.Theyfindcloserelatives,clanmembers,orcoethnics, whofacilitateproductionsbyorganizingcastsandspaceforshooting. Localactorscanbepaidalmostnothingandtheyhavethatauraof authenticitythatactorswhohadsojournedinthestateswouldhave beenhardpressedtoeffect.Localshavealsobeentrainedtodocamera and crew work, making the costs of production unimaginably low.
234
Louisa Schein
HmongAmericanscanarrivewithoneormorevideocameras,anda feature-lengthvideocanbeshotinaweekortwo. AnothermodelforinvolvingAsianHmonginU.S.-ownedventures hasbeensponsorship—especiallyinthemusicbusiness.Aproducerwill locateatalentedandaspiringsinger,dancer,orotherperformerandput upmoneyforthemtotrainandrecordmusicintheirhomecountry, whetherLaosorThailand.MusicandlyricsmightbewritteninAsia,by theperformerorothers,ormightbeprovidedbytheU.S.producer.For musicvideos,greatcareistakenwithsettingsandcostumes,offeringthe HmongAmericanconsumerauralandvisualindulgencesinmotifsfrom rememberedvillagelife,oreyecandyintheformoflavishcostumes— traditional Hmong or other Southeast Asian styles all being popular amongthenostalgicaudiencesintheWest. Thereareseveralaspectsthatcontributetothepoliticsofvaluefor theseperformers.Muchliketheresourcesoflandsdeemedindigenous, theyarestruggledoverwithgreatexertion.Sponsorsstriveassiduously tomakeexclusivearrangementswithtalentstheyfeelhavepromise. Agreatdealofbackbitinggoesonbetweenproducersaboutwhohas controloverhotstarsinAsiaand,oncesomeoneshowssignsofpotential success,producersfrequentlypoachoneachother’sterrain.Likewise, therisingstarsareoftenwillingtoplaythefield,makingagreements withvariousproducersfordifferentprojects.However,somearealso carefultomaintainonepatron,whowillbeloyaltopromotingthem overothercompetitorsonthemarket. Themorerelevantaspectofvalueforthisdiscussionpertainstothe homelandcacheoftheseartists.Thehomelandartists’appealisoften largely based on their traditional aura. Indeed, there is yet another genre of music video, that of the singers of time-honored Hmong kwvtxhiaj—improvisedantiphonalsongs—whoarelocatedinvillages as keepers of traditional lore and recorded or shot in their localities withoutthetechnologiesofrecordingstudios.Althoughpopular,there isalimitedmarket,mostlyamongtheeldergenerations,fortheseold folkmelodies.ThosesingerswhodressinHmongorSoutheastAsian attire,singinHmonglanguage,butsingthesoftpopstylethatwas fashionedtowardtheendofthewarandintherefugeecamps,have awidermarketability.ThereisapremiumplacedonAsianlocations, and the desire for consuming the East is a crucial element of fans’ subjectivities. ForHmongAmericanentrepreneurs,then,thehomelandservesas resourceinatleasttwomutuallyreinforcingways.Itprovidesprofitable conditions for production—with abundant labor and costs at
DiasporicMediaandHmong/MiaoFormulationsofNativenessandDisplacement 235
rock bottom prices—and it provides invaluable material for cultural imaginaries.Thereisnosubstitutefortheeffectsgarneredfromnarrative, musicanddocumentaryvideosshotbeforethecraggybackdropsofthe SoutheastAsianorChinesehighlands,orinthegrittymise-en-scèneof dustyvillageroads,makeshifthomesandricecookedoverwoodfires thatevokesrefugeecampsandpeasantagriculture.Notably,althoughit isspecificlands—andthetraditionsfixedtothesesitesfromwhichvalue canbederived,itisthosewithaccesstotransnationalcircuitsofmobility, commerce,andrepresentationwhoarepositionedtoreaprewards.It is,inotherwords,thearticulation(Clifford2001)ofcarefullyrendered place-based authenticity with the ready mobility of transnational Hmongentrepreneursthatmakesforlucrativeventures.
PlaceMaking,Translocally As I have suggested, while narratives of displacement and landlessness have over history characterized almost all Hmong and Miao, even those within China, what the meaning production of Hmong AmericanvideorevealsaremyriadeffortstostabilizeAsiansitesasloci ofculturalcontinuity,placesnotoftransience,butoffixedsignificance for roots-seeking Hmong. We might call the practice of consuming musicandvideoproducedinAsiaoneofplacemaking,akindofvirtual orremoteplacemakingfromafarthatisbornoutoftranslocalactivity andimagination.Ascommentatorsonindigenismhavepointedout, theplacemakingonwhichindigenousclaimsaremadeisalsoroutinely premisedontranslocalalliances.AsCastreeputsit:“Peoplelayingclaim tothetitle‘indigenous’have...createda‘resistanceidentity’thatis avowedly international in compass. It is at once territorially rooted ...andyetaprimeinstanceoftranslocalsolidarity”(2004:136).But what Castree describes is a circumstance in which locals concerned with their own locale, tap into the force of translocal organizations and discourses as a way of pursuing their ends. The Hmong/Miao versionofplacemakingdiffersinthatitisspecifictranslocals,what Glick-Schiller,Basch,andBlanc-Szanton(1994)call“transmigrants,” whoengageinfashioning,evenbounding,thelocalandimposethis meaningofplaceonthosewhoinhabitAsiansites.Thoserepresented are rendered relatively inactive through the action of translocals on them.Althoughwecouldsay,then,thatlocalismandtranslocalismare mutuallyconstitutivehere,astheyarewithindigenousmovements,we canidentifyadistinctmodeofinteractionthatmaybemoretypicalof theactivitiesofdiasporicscanonizingthelandstheycallhome.
236
Louisa Schein
Itmightbearguedthattransnationalactivistsforindigenouspeoples taketheirplaceinalonglineofOrientalists,exoticisttourists,heritage preservationists, government conservationists and the like who also traffic in imposing the “tribal slot” on others (Li 2000: 153). Hmong Americans, with their apparatuses of representation could be seen to be not so different from these historical agents who affirm their own modernity by freezing others in alteric traditions. It is crucial, then,thatweexplorethespecificsofthat“slot”intowhichhomeland Hmong/Miaoareplacedthroughthediscursiveandproductiveactivities of media. As Tania Li suggests: “Agency is involved in the selection and combination of elements that form a recognizably indigenous identity,andalsointheprocessofmakingconnections”(2000:157). InHmong/Miaotranslocalmedia,wheredoesthatagencylie,and,if notindigenous,whatidentityisfashioned? WhatisnotableaboutHmong/Miaopracticesofhomelandrecuperationisthattheyareaboutinternalconnectionsandinternaldifferences. Perhaps the indigenous term does not come into relevance precisely becausethesepracticesarenotconcernedwitharticulatingnativenessor makingclaimstodominantstatesorinstitutions.Rather,theyareabout internallycomplexidentityformation.Bothsocialandmediapractices arepremisedonandreinforceadisparity,botheconomicandgendered, between homelands and the West. Lands of origin, as we shall see, areconstructedasimpoverished,dependent,feminine.Thoseactors, mostlymen,whotraversetransnationalspacearemasculinizedbytheir economicpowerandinturnbytheirsexualaccess.Suchinternecine cultural politics, while thickly imbricated with a nostalgia for lost homelands,donotparticularlyinterfacewithindigeneitypoliticsthat aremuchmoreaboutminoritizationvis-à-visethnicothers.
ReadingHomelandVideos As I have said, Hmong American video concerning the homeland comprisesseveraldistinctgenres.Themostsalientdistinctionisthat betweenvideosthatportrayAsiaintactandthosethatportrayHmong sitestransectedbyreturneetravel.LetmefirstdiscussportrayalsofAsia astheyworktoevoketheHmongpast.Inthesetexts,thediasporic Hmongsubjectiscenteredasthecinematiceyegazingonformertimes; indeed,formigrantsubjects,thereisawayinwhichAsiaisliterally thepastoftheirearlierlives,formanythesiteoftheircomingofage. Youthasanobjectofnostalgicmemoryismuchofwhatfuelsthedesire forvideosthattravelbackwardintime.Butthereisalsoageopolitical
DiasporicMediaandHmong/MiaoFormulationsofNativenessandDisplacement 237
mappingimplicitintheseevocations,onethatisreinforcedthrough gendered imagery and positions Hmong in the West as those most advancedwithinglobalHmongsociety.Belowaresomeofthetypical genres.
HomelandDocumentaries Videosindocumentarystylehavebeenmadeconcerningeverycountry of Hmong residence—China, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and Burma. Theyusuallyfeaturethedirectorasguide,narratingtheimageswith heavyinterpretationdesignedtoallowviewerstoreflectonwherethey havecomefrom.Shotfromairplanesorspeedingbusses,featuresofthe land—thearcofmountains,thelushofgardensandfields,gurgling streams,peasantswithdraftanimals—arestockimages,asarefestivals or cultural events that feature singing and dancing. Typically, there isadwellingontherudimentsofliving,emphasizing—tacitlyorexplicitly—whathasbecomethestarkdifferencebetweenruggedvillage livesinAsiaandsuchurbancomfortsasrunningwaterandvehicular transportation. Sometimes, the relevant Asian towns and cities, say Vientiane or Kunming, will also be sketched. Although the viewer knowsthattheseimagescomefromthepresenttime,narrationoften adoptsatoneof“thisiswherewecamefrom.”Ponderoussongs,inthe traditionalkwvtxhiajstyleorthenostalgiclightpopofAsiaenhance theemotionalimpactofthevisuals. AmongthedocumentariansofAsia,SuThao,oneoftheveryearliest to make commercial Hmong videos, is perhaps the best known. His videoscoverallofthecountrieslistedabove,andhewasthefirstamong Hmong émigrés to document Vietnam and Burma. Each video case offersalavishcollageofcostumedHmong,oftenwithThaonestled somewhereamongthem.Thecontentsthendeliverthispromiseddream worldoftravelbacktotheculturalwomb.WeseeallthroughThao’s panopticaleye,andweencountervillagersallalongthewaythrough Thao’spatinterviewsaskingtheintervieweestoidentifythemselves, theirclan,theirvillage,theevent,ifrelevant.Acharacteristicfeature ofThao’sworkistheheavilygendereddimensionoftheencounter:a malegazefallsonthefeminizedbeautyofAsia(oftenthroughzooms ofunwittingyoungwomen’sfaces),andthenconcretizesthefantasyin theformofflirtyinterviewswithwomenastotheirmaritalstatusand clanaffiliations.AsIhavearguedelsewhere(Schein1999,2004),media areintrinsictothecultivationandactualizationofdesireforhomeland womenasmistressesorwives,adesirethatalsointurnpropelsHmong
238
Louisa Schein
transnationality.Suchdocumentariesarethemostexplicitexampleof this. Anotherformofdocumentingthepastisinreturningtothespecific sitesofHmongrefugeehistory,specifically,LongTieng,theCIAairbase intheLaomountainswheresomanyHmongrefugeesworkedorspent theirchildhoods,orBanVinai,themainHmongrefugeecamp.These sitesarenothingbutovergrownrubblenow,butthereturneecamera wanderslovinglyovereverydetail,lookingpastthedecaytoreevoke pastslivedintheselocales. Certain more specialized genres have also developed in the documentary vein. Tapes of actual kwv txhiaj singing have always been popular, and feature costumed singers, either staged for the camera orinthecontextofAsianfestivals.Atypicaleditingtechniqueisto enrichthecontentsofthesongswithvisualcutawaystoscenesofthe land—mountains,fields,villagelife.Morerecently,documentariesof bullfights,afavoritefestivalpastimeforHmong/MiaoinChinaand SoutheastAsia,haveappearedonthemarket.Evenmorerecentisthe newgenreofhuntingvideosthattakethevieweronactualhunting trips deep into the jungles of Laos or Thailand to stalk the birds or smallanimalsthataudiencesrememberastheirspecialquarryintimes goneby.
HistoricalAccounts Other documentarians have undertaken to represent less timeless imagesoftheHmongpastinfavorofconcreteaccountsofthespecific Hmonghistoriesofmigration,waranddisplacement.Thesetapes oftenrelyonarchivalfootagethathasbeenpasseddownsincethe war,orthatisobtainedthroughFreedomofInformationActrequests. YuephengXiong,whostudiedhistoryatthegraduatelevelandnow runstheonlyHmongbookstoreintheUnitedStates,isperhapsbest knownforthisgenre.InRoyalLaoArmedForces(1998),forinstance, weseean85-minuteblack-and-whitefilm,narratedinLao,showing soldiersintrainingandinuniform,learningmaneuvers,marching in formation, catapulting themselves over walls, climbing ropes, parachutingintofields,trainingwithmultifariousweaponry,loading cannons,beingreviewedbydecoratedofficers,participatinginany numberofformalceremonies. Xiong’sbestseller,however,isaroots-seekingjourneytoChina(Taug Txoj Lw Ntshav: Keeb Kwm Hmoob Suav Teb, “Following the Trail of Blood: Hmong History in China,” 2000), which traces the putative
DiasporicMediaandHmong/MiaoFormulationsofNativenessandDisplacement 239
migrationtrajectoryoftheMiaosouthwardacrossChinatotheircurrent locationsinthesouthwest.NowinPartThree,itdoesnotusearchival footage,butratherwasshotbyXionghimselfwiththehelpofaMiao crewinChina.Oneofthereasonsforthetape’spopularityisthatit bestowsadeepergenealogyontheSoutheastAsianHmong,agenealogy thatsuggestsatimebeforethewavesofdisplacementbegan.Xiong’s inspirationalnarrationpeppersmostofthefootage,beginningwith the opening lines: “Hello. I am Yuepheng Xiong. There have been timeswhenIwonderedwhoIreallywas.IamHmong,butwhatare Hmong?AndwhoareHmong?Dowehaveahistorylikeotherpeople?” InadditiontovisitingseveralkeysitesofMiaomigrationinChina, XiongtakestheviewertoZhuolu,75milesnorthwestofBeijingand muchcanonizedastheoriginplaceoftheMiaopeople,whereastatue ofChiyou,claimedtobetheoriginalHmongprogenitor,isregularly worshippedonHmongreturneepilgrimages.Hedescribestheconflict betweentheoriginalinhabitantsofthisregion—Chiyou,theputative Miaoancestor,andHuangdi,theChineseYellowEmperor.Hedescribes thesuperiordefensesoftheMiaopeople,howtheywerevictoriousnine timesbeforedefeat.“Becauseofthesewars,”helaments,“Hmongwere forcedtogoliveinthemountains.Theyleftbehindtheirprosperous livesandhadtoresignthemselvestobackwardness.”Herethevideo carriesontheperennialaccountofHmonglossoflandandkingdom, mobilizingittoexplainbackwardnessinthepresentday.Intheprocess, itrenderstheacutelossesoftheVietnameracontinuouswithmillennia ofliketragedies.
FolkStoriesandOtherTimelessTales Risinginpopularityinrecentyearsaredramaticrecreationsofancient Hmong/Miaofolkstories,completewithspecialeffects.Childrenand elderlyareespeciallyfondofthisgenre,whichfeaturesghosts,spirits, andanimalsinabundance.Thefolktalegenretrafficsintimelessness, clothingitsactorsintraditionalHmongdressanddwellingaffectionately ontheimponderabiliaofvillagelifeanywhere.Stockcharacters—an orphanboy,agood-heartedstepdaughter,anevilsecondwife—people thescripts,whichoftenstayquitefaithfultospecifictalesthathave beenpasseddownforgenerations. Relatedtotheactualfolktalesaredramassetinthevillagelifeofold, especiallyromancesandyarnsaboutgenderandkinshipstruggles.A “secondwife”genrehasbecomepopularasHmongAmericansreflecton atraditionofpolygynythatwastechnicallyterminatedonarrivalinthe
240
Louisa Schein
UnitedStates,butthatdefactopersistswhenmarriedHmongAmericans pursuetransnationalliaisons.Bothtragicandcomicfiguresaboundin thesetalesoffamilyintriguethatoftenbuildonthetime-honoredtropes ofolderlore—tropessuchasthewould-beloversdividedbywealthand poverty,theenduringfirstwifepersecutedbyaheadstrongsecondwife, thechildseparatedfromparentsbyacruelremarriage. Theotherformofnostalgiadramathathasoverwhelmingpopularity ismartialartsthrillers.Whilesomeproducershavemadegoodmoney by buying the rights to Chinese, Hong Kong and other martial arts featuresanddubbingtheminHmonglanguage,afewhavetriedtheir handwithoriginaldramasplayedbyHmongactorswhoaremartial artsenthusiaststhemselves.Thesetapesusuallymimicthethemesof theclassicalChinesegenre,withbitsofHmongaccentaddedinfor goodmeasure. Allthesegenresofdramatapesareusuallyquitedidactic,andmoralize aboutgoodkinship,honor,andpersonalconduct.Butmyworkwith audiencesindicatesthatitisnotthemessagesaboutthevagariesof sociallifepersethatbindtheirviewerssoloyallytothescreens.Rather, itistheerasureoftemporalityandchangethatmakesthemasalvetothe woundsofperennialdisplacement.EvenifitmeansdressingpresentdayAsianHmonginold-fashionedattire—pleatedbatikedskirts,for instance,insteadofthesarongsthathavebeenadoptedbymostHmong in Thailand—having them till the fields in full festival costume, or insuringthattheyspeakinthe“oldHmong”languagespecifiedinthe scripts,directorsstraintoofferthese“collectivewishimages”(Watts 1999) to their voracious viewers. As Hmong anthropologist Gary Y. Lee puts it, “to the Hmong in diaspora, these video images may be morerealthantherealityoftheirdrearysurroundingsthatareoften devoid of familiar cultural practices and self-presentations” (2004: 16). Here we see clearly the agentive constructedness of a past that becomesacurrencyinthebusinessofHmongvideo.Comparableto the international NGOs that must construct enticing evocations of indigenous peoples’ traditional lives to draw donor funds, Hmong directorsstrivetoauthenticatetheirimagesformaximumsalabilityin theentertainmentmarket.
LisTxaisandtheInspirationalGenre Akintotheplethoraofnewagemediathatglutthemainstreammarket with motifs and recreations of indigenous peoples’ lore, a series of videosfeaturingthecultfigureLisTxaisbringmessagesofunityand
DiasporicMediaandHmong/MiaoFormulationsofNativenessandDisplacement 241
traditionalvaluestodislocatedHmongstrugglingtofindmeaningin alienatingurbanAmericanlives.LisTxaishasbeenaself-appointed gurusincethedaysofBanVinairefugeecampwhenheconstructeda templeandpreachedanewHmongreligion.Afterthecamperacame toaclose,ListookupresidenceinaHmongareainaremotecornerof theThaimountains.Fromtherehehasrecordedaudiotapesthathave been widely distributed across the oceans instructing émigrés about howtostayHmonginathreateningworld.Afewyearsago,arelative inWisconsingottheideaofpreservinghisteachingsthroughvideo. TheresultisaseriesoftapesthatfeatureLisdressedinvariouskindsof ethnicorWesterngarbengagedinsuchactivitiesasstrollingthrough themountains,pickingberries,playingaflute,playingtheqeej(bamboo reedpipe),blowingleaves,orsinging,inarangeofstyles,aboutwhatit meanstobeHmongandtheimportanceoflovingoneanotheraround theworld.Inoneofthemoststrikingsequences,heappearsinafield ofvariegatedpoppies,introducestheirvarieties,thentakestheviewer throughanextendedhow-tolectureaboutcultivatingtheflowerand harvestingopium.Lis’svideosoperatelikesermons,drawingtogether fragmentsoftraditiontofashionteachingsforthefuture.“Neverforget” istheoverarchingmessage.
TrialsofTransnationality Videos that deal with the new tribulations of acutely asymmetrical relationsindiasporaalsohavewideviewership.HmongAmericanaudiencesdesirenotonlythefrozenimagesthatevokememory,butalsoa vehicleforworkingthroughthetraumasthatgeopoliticalseparation haveprecipitated.Thesestoriesdwellnoticeablyongenderstruggles, highlightingtheharshactualitythatgenderasymmetryalsostructures muchofthetransnationalinterchangebetweenHmongintheWest andthoseinAsia.Theyalsofunctiondidactically,warningphilandering HmongAmericansoftheperilsofoverseasexcess. InMobNiamYau(SickforaSecondWife[2000]),aschemingmiddleagedwomanizerplayssicktogethiswifetoagreetoconsultashaman whomhe’ssecretlypaidofftodiagnosethatheneedsasecondwife. HegoesofftoThailandtowooabeautifulyounggirl,whoseduceshim intolivingwithherparentsandworkinginthefieldsforthehousehold. Incahootswithherlocalboyfriend,shesetsupakidnappinginwhich theboyfriendandhisgangtakethehaplessHmongAmericancaptive at gunpoint, humiliate him, and call his U.S. wife to bail him out. Shedoesso,dutifully,andhereturns,chastened,totheUnitedStates.
242
Louisa Schein
Onemightsummarizethemoralmessageas:Ifyoutamperwiththe homeland,itwilltamperwithyou.
CommodifiedPlacesandTranslocalLonging Atfirstblush,theHmongdiasporaappearsquitedivergentfromthose socialmovementsthatareorganizedaroundthenotionofindigenous ties and rights to land. In some ways, their centuries of geographic dispersalmitigatetowardviewingtheHmongandotherdiasporicsas contrapuntaltothosecollectivitieswhoseidentityclaimsarebasedon rootedness.WhatareadingofHmongmediabringsintofocus,however, isthatthediscoursesbothofdiasporiclongingandthosechampioning preservationofindigenouslifewaysarenotsofarapart.AsCliffordhas suggested, “We are left with a spectrum of attachments to land and place—articulated,oldandnewtraditionsofindigenousdwellingand traveling”(2001:477). Togetherindigenousanddiasporicdiscoursesmaybepartandparcel ofaworldwidemalaisethatpromptsthosewithmeansofrepresentation to offer recuperations of the traditional, the untouched, and thetimelessalongsidecautionarytalesabouttoomuchintercourse with the outside. These discourses, of course, have measurable materialdimensions.Inthecaseofdiasporicmedia,theycomprise mediacommoditiesthatsellintheWest;inthecaseofindigenous movements,theyareinlargepartwhatgeneratestheflowofdonor funds.Assuch,wemightviewboththeretrogradediscoursesandthe materialpracticestheyimplyasindexicalofanoverarchingcommodity logicthatcompelsindigeneityandtraditiontowardthemarket,or evenaccountsforthevisibilityofindigeneity/traditionthroughthe workofmarketforces.Wattsremindsusthat:“Markersofidentity may become themselves commodities in a way that the histories ofinterrelatedpeoplesbecomespatializedintoboundedterritories” (1999:88).Inthinkingthecontingencyoftheemergenceofindigenous identification,wemightposequestionssuchas“Whoprofits?”And “Inwhatwaysandunderwhatcircumstancesdoneoliberaleconomic formationscalloutcertainstrategiesofindigeneity?”Again,oneof thewaysthatHmong/Miaohomelandactivitydivergesfromthatof indigenousstrugglesisthat,althoughitiscalledoutinlargepartby neoliberaleconomicformations,itseconomicsareinternal.Profitsare extractedfromtheproductionofgoodsandtheirsalewithinHmong/ Miaocommunity,accountingperhapsforwhy“indigenous”rhetoric wouldnotapply.
DiasporicMediaandHmong/MiaoFormulationsofNativenessandDisplacement 243
This raises the question of minority status and its concomitant derogations.Howeverindigenousanddiasporicpeoplescarveouttheir identities,itisconsistentlyasoutsideormarginaltodominantstates andethnicities.ButasdelaCadena(2000)stressesinherdiscussion of“indigenousmestizos,”theseexclusionsarealwayspartial,dialogic, contested. Hmong Americans experience what she calls a “fractal hybridity”(2000:318–319)similartothatoftheIndiansshedescribed inPeruwhoarebothofthedominantsocietyandyetitsother,similar insomeways,yeteveralteric.HmongmembershipinAmericanness is in part achieved by wielding means of media representation and orientalizing their counterparts in Asia; it is, in turn, this practice thatinternallyfractures“theHmong/Miao”intogeopoliticalsectors. And yet the longing that propels these acts is at the same time one ofidentification,borninpartoftheracismanddiscriminationthat brings Hmong/Miao together in common experience over time and space. It is here that we can better perceive the interdependence of translocalityandplacemaking,forthehighlymarkedplacesofHmong/ Miao authenticity reveal themselves to be artifacts of transnational processesjustastheinceptionofindigenousidentitiesis“groundedin internationalnetworks”(Niezen2000:120).Thesetransnationalitiesare inflecteddifferentlyhowever,forwhilemobilizationsoftheindigenous deploythetermtospeaklegitimacytodominantothers,Hmong/Miao mediaproducersignorethoseothers,deployingtheirvoicesinsteadto engageinnamingtheirlesspowered,feminizedcoethnicsonancient landsaspartoftheirowndiasporicprocess.
Notes 1. ThetermMiaohasalonghistoryofvarioususagestodenotenon-Han peoplesinChina.IntheMaoistera,thetermwasstabilizedtoreferofficially toalargeumbrellacategory,thefifthlargestminorityinChina,withinwhich researchersincludedseveralsubgroups,includingthepeoplethatcallthemselves“Hmong.”Forthepurposesofthisarticle,theMiaotermappearswhen IrefertoHmongcoethnicsinChina.Althoughreadilyadoptedbymanyin China, the term remains highly contested outside the mainland. For more detailed discussion of the politics of ethnonyms, see Schein (2000: xi–xiv, 35–67).
244
Louisa Schein
2. SeeCastree(2004)andMassey(1999)fordiscussionsofrelationalityin regardtospaceandplace. 3. Foranextendedexplorationoftheseissuesaroundthepropertyandthe hunterincidentseeScheinandThoj(n.d.).
References Beteille,Andre.1998.Theideaofindigenouspeople.CurrentAnthropology 39(2):187–191. Bourdieu,Pierre,andLoicWacquant.2001.Newliberalspeak:Noteson thenewplanetaryvulgate.RadicalPhilosophy105(January–February): 2–5. Burchell, Graham. 1996. Liberal government and the techniques of theself.InFoucaultandpoliticalreason:Liberalism,neo-liberalismand rationalitiesofgovernment,editedbyAndrewBarry,ThomasOsborne, andNikolasRose,19–36.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. Castree,Noel.2004.Differentialgeographies:Place,indigenousrights and“local”resources.PoliticalGeography23:133–167. Clifford, James. 2001. Indigenous articulations. Contemporary Pacific 13(2):468–490. Cobo,JoseMartinez.1986.Thestudyoftheproblemofdiscrimination againstindigenouspopulations,vols.1–5,UnitedNationsDocument E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7/Add.4.Geneva:UnitedNations. delaCadena,Marisol.2000.Indigenousmestizos:Thepoliticsofraceand culture in Cuzco, Peru, 1919–1991. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Glick-Schiller, Nina, Linda Basch, and Cristina Blanc-Szanton. 1994. Transnational projects: A new perspective. In Nations unbound: Transnational projects, postcolonial predicaments and deterritorialized nation-states,editedbyNinaGlick-Schiller,LindaBasch,andCristina Blanc-Szanton, 1–19. Langhorn, PA: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers. Heelas,Paul,andPaulMorris.1992.Thevaluesoftheenterpriseculture: Themoraldebate.London:Routledge. Lee,GaryY.2004.DreamingacrosstheOceans:GlobalisationandCultural ReinventionintheHmongDiaspora.Paperpresentedataworkshopat TheAustralianNationalUniversity,Nov.20–21. Leuthold, Steven. 1998. Indigenous aesthetics: Native art, media and identity.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress. Li,TaniaMurray.2000.ArticulatingindigenousidentityinIndonesia: Resourcepoliticsandthetribalslot.ComparativeStudiesinSocietyand History42(1):149–179.
DiasporicMediaandHmong/MiaoFormulationsofNativenessandDisplacement 245
Massey, Doreen. 1999. Spaces of politics. In Human geography today, edited by Doreen Massey, John Allen, and Philip Sarre, 279–294. Cambridge:PolityPress. Moua,Wameng.2004.HuntersSpeakOuttoDNRDirectors:“Stopthe Racism!”HmongToday1(26):7. Niezen,Ronald.2000.Recognizingindigenism:Canadianunityandthe internationalmovementofindigenouspeoples.ComparativeStudies inSocietyandHistory42(1):119–148. Orecklin,Michelle.2004.Massacreinthewoods;Whydidamanopen fireonagroupofhunters?Hesaysitwasaboutrace,butasurvivor disagrees.TimeMagazine,December6:37. Schein, Louisa. 1999. Diaspora politics, homeland erotics and the materializingofmemory.Positions:EastAsiaCulturesCritique7(3): 697–729. ——.2000. Minority rules: The Miao and the feminine in China’s culturalpolitics.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress. ——.2004. Homeland beauty: Transnational longing and Hmong Americanvideo.JournalofAsianStudies63(2):433–463. Schein,Louisa,andVa-MegnThoj.n.d.Occultracism:Maskingraceinthe Hmonghunter-incidentadialoguebetweenanthropologistLouisaSchein andfilmmaker-activistVa-MegnThoj.UnpublishedMS. Tapp,Nicholas.1989.Sovereigntyandrebellion:ThewhiteHmongof NorthernThailand.Singapore:OxfordUniversityPress. Watts,MichaelJohn.1999.Collectivewishimages:Geographicalimaginaries and the crisis of national development. In Human geography today,editedbyDoreenMassey,JohnAllen,andPhilipSarre,85–107. Cambridge:PolityPress. Xiong,Gaoib.2004.Huntingtragedyopensupquestionsof:Race,class, sanity,competenceandtradition.HmongTimes7(23):1–2.
Videography MobNiamYau(Sickforasecondwife).2000.VHS.DirectedbySuThao. Fresno,CA:S.T.UniversalVideo. RoyalLaoArmedForces.1998.VHS.ProducedbyYuephengXiong.ST. Paul,MN:HmongABCPublications. TaugTxojLwNtshav:KeebKwmHmoobNyobSuavTeb(FollowingtheTrail ofBlood:HmonghistoryinChina).2000.VHS.DirectedbyYuepheng Xiong.St.Paul,MN:HmongABCPublications.
This page intentionally left blank
n i n e
Bolivian Indigeneity in Japan: Folklorized Music Performance Michelle Bigenho
F
romthe1960sthroughtheearly1990s,whatwascalled“folklore” (f o¯kuroa)inJapan—“Andeanmusic”inotherglobalcontexts—experiencedaworldwideboomespeciallyinEuropeandJapan.Musiciansat thecenterofthisboomnowtalkofsaturatedaudiencesandlament thattheirmusicistoocheaplyheardinthesubwaysofanymajorcity; Andeanmusichasbecome,asonemusicianwhoplaysIrishmusicin Tokyoexpressedit“theChinesefoodofethnicmusic.”ButtheAndean music boom in Japan took on particular characteristics, as Japanese fansofthismusicmovedbeyondthepositionofpassivelistenersand begantolearntoplaytheinstrumentsthatattractedthemtothismusic in the first place. The charango (small plucked-stringed instrument), quena(notchedflute),andzampoñas(panpipes)evokefortheJapanese imagesofadistantindigenousworld,aworldofnon-WesternOthers withwhomtheJapaneseimagineasharednon-WesternOtherness.In thischapterIanalyzeBolivianfolkloreperformancesinJapan,andI drawonperformers’perspectives—thoseofbothJapaneseandBolivian musicians—to examine the contemporary imaginings of “Andean music” in Japan and the place of indigeneity in these intercultural articulations. Althoughthischapterspringsfromtheworldofmusic,itsinsights speaktobroaderissuesofhowrepresentationsofindigenousculture haveenteredglobalcirculation,andmorespecifically,howtheserepresentationshaveenteredthemarketsofanon-Westernworld.Positive ideas about indigenous peoples circulate through multiple realms (United Nations, NGOs, tourists, etc.) and back to local indigenous
247
248
Michelle Bigenho
groups(Clifford2001:472),oftencreatingtheimpossible“hyperreal Indian” as the perfect Noble Savage subject and the alter ego to all negativecharacteristicsofthemodernWesternsubject(Ramos1998). Even as indigenous peoples’ use of such representations should not be viewed in purely instrumental terms (Graham 2005), indigenous peoplesadoptandmanipulateWesternrepresentationsofindigeneity toarticulatewithtouristmarkets(seeZorn2005),andtomakedemands on local, regional, and state entities (see Turner 1991). As a way to movebeyondtheconundrumofindigenousessentialismorindigenous constructivism,andtograpplewithboththerootednessassociatedwith indigeneityandtheuprootednessofdiasporaexperience,JamesClifford addressesthesecirculationsas“indigenousarticulations”(2001;this volume).Butwhataboutthosenetworksthatsustainsomanygood feelings about indigenous peoples and indigenous things? Focusing onrepresentationsofindigeneity,thischapteraddresseshowBolivian musiciansrenegotiateJapaneseexpectationsofindigenousperformance, andhowJapanesemusicianswhobecomeinvolvedinthesetraditions maymovefarbeyondthestereotypesintheirknowledgeofBolivian music while still pinning on indigeneity a nostalgia for what they perceiveaslostinJapanesemodernity. In addressing this circulation of ideas, I find useful Anna Tsing’s concept of “indigenous voice”—“the genre conventions with which public affirmations of identity are articulated” and through which genres,ratherthanthespeakers,holdpersuasivepower(thisvolume). ThedifferencehereisthatforthemostpartIamnotwritingabout musicians who affirm their own indigenous identity in relation to theworldwide“powerfuldefinitionalframesofindigenousstruggle”: sovereignty,nationalinclusion,andenvironmentalstewardship(Tsing thisvolume).Rather,thischapterreflectsonrepresentationsofindigenousvoicethatbecomemarketedtoaglobalaudience.Ifthisvolume takesasastartingpointtheideathatindigenousness,likeanyidentity, isrelational,articulated,and“withoutguarantees”(delaCadenaand Starn in the Introduction), indigenous identities depend in part on thecirculationofimagesandsoundsofindigeneity,oftenascreated, modified,andsustainedbynonindigenousOthers.Inthissense,labels ofindigeneitycirculateascommoditiesthataresometimestakenup byorforcedonthosewhoself-identifyasindigenous.Inaworldof musicanddance,theserepresentationsoftentakefolklorizedforms. By folklorization, I refer to the multilayered process whereby groups consciouslychoreograph,compose,andperformforthemselvesand others, what they want to represent as distinct about their identity
BolivianIndigeneityinJapan:FolklorizedMusicPerformance 249
(local, regional, national), and how this performance is also filtered throughasetofaudienceexpectationsabouttheOther.Thedebated middlegroundinfolklorizationofindigeneityisbetweenperformers’ desires,audiences’expectations,andthedifferentmeaningsthatfolklore performancesacquireastheymovebetweeninternational,national, andlocalcontexts. Through folklorization, Bolivian musical representations of indigenous voice have come to represent the national within a country wherepowerfulframesofindigenousstrugglecontinueinaparallel fashion.Bolivian1992censusstatisticsonindigenouslanguagesreflect an indigenous majority, with Quechua and Aymara spoken in the highlandsand30differentindigenouslanguagesspokenbyover33 different ethnic groups in Bolivia’s eastern lowlands (Albó 1999). In relationto2001censusdata,inwhich63percentofthepopulation declaredanindigenousidentityandonly49.4percentclaimedtospeak anindigenouslanguage,AndrewCanessasuggeststhatlanguageisan inadequate marker of indigenous identity in Bolivia (2006). In any case,itwouldbeamistaketotreatthisstatisticalmajorityasasingle unifiedblock,andinsomecasesthedifferencesbetweenhighlandand lowlandindigeneityhavebeenmanipulatedbyBolivianstatepolicies (Gustafson2002).Nevertheless,recentsocialmovements,alldepictedto varyingdegreesas“indigenous,”haveconvergedtoproducesignificant effectsaroundissueslikecontrolovergasresourcesandtheproduction ofcoca. ThehistoricizationofindigenousvoiceinBoliviashouldtakeinto accounttheSpanishcolonialadministrationthatmaintained“Spanish” and“Indians”asseparaterepublics,andthepopularmemoryof18thcentury uprisings against this colonial rule. In 1781 an indigenous Aymaraman,TupacKatari,ledanuprisingthatfencedoffthecityof La Paz for three months. Tupac Katari’s rebellion, along with others oftheperiod,proposedalternativeprojectsthatfeaturedareturnto indigenousrule(seeThomson2002).TupacKatariwaspubliclyexecuted bytroopssentfromBuenosAires,buthehaslivedontheincollective memoryofBolivianAymaras. In the 1970s, a radical indigenous politics emerged around the experienceofAymaraintellectualsinthecityofLaPaz,andthrough apeasantunionthatinterpretedBolivianhistorythrough“thetheory oftwoeyes”:exploitationasaclassandexploitationasdistinctethnic or racial groups (Rivera Cusicanqui 2003b; Sanjinés 2002). These movementstooktheirnamefromthe1781hero,andoneKatarista, FelipeQuispe(ElMallku)constitutesaprominentfigurewithinthese
250
Michelle Bigenho
contemporaryindigenousarticulations.Quispemakesstatementsthat harktoAymarafirstnessandrecallthe1780suprisings:“Q’aras(whites) whothinkwithforeignheadsmustbeIndianized”;Indiansneedto “unthink” mestizo ways (after Sanjinés 2002: 52–53); and “If you quarteredTupajKatariwithfourhorses,youcanquartermewithfour tanksorfourairplanes”(afterPatziPalco2003:221).Quispe’spolitical momentum,shapedaroundissuesofland,water,andcocaeradication policies,coalescedasapoliticalpartycalledtheIndigenousMovement Pachakuti(MovimientoIndígenaPachakuti[MIP]). IndigenousvoiceinBoliviaisalsoconnectedtoadefenseofthecoca leafbecausethisplanthasbeenusedintheAndesforcenturies,within traditional ritual and working contexts. The current coca growers’ movement has been profoundly shaped against the backdrop of (1) theneoliberaleconomicpoliciesthatinthe1980sledtotheclosureof minesandtherelocationofminerstococa-growingregions,and(2) theU.S.pressuresforeradicationofcocaproduction,eveninzonesthat hadbeenlabeledfor“traditional”productionandconsumption(see LéonsandSanabria1997;RiveraCusicanqui2003a;Spedding1997). Coca growers (cocaleros) emerged as a significant social movement that struggled to defend the small-scale, peasant producer from the criminalizingpoliticsofthestateandinternationalsphere.EvoMorales emergedastheleaderofthismovementthattookelectoralformin2002 asMovementtoSocialism(MovimientoalSocialismo[MAS]). The“Octoberagenda”of2003—dramaticallyexpressedthroughthe popularoustingofPresidentGonzaloSánchezdeLozada—broughtinto highprofileBolivia’smanagementofhydrocarbonresources,thecryfor aconstituentassemblytoreconstitutetheBoliviannation-state,and the2005specialelectoralprocessthroughwhichEvoMoraleswonthe presidencywitharecordpercentageofthevote.Morales’sindigenous roots—something that has already come under critique as a more recentlyelaboratednarrative—havebeencentraltoframingthemoment inwhichitisfeltthatanindigenousmajorityisfinallyrepresentedin thehighestofficeoftheland.AlthoughMorales’spoliticshavebeen interpretedasmergingmultipleinterestsincludingthosebasedonclass, indigenousethnicity,andantiglobalizationdiscourses(Canessa2006; Postero2005),thenationalandinternationalcoverageofhisvictoryand inaugurationhaveoverwhelminglyemphasizedhisindigenousidentity. Morales’sinternationalpresenceasanindigenouspresidentmaymark ashiftinhowBolivia’slocalindigenousarticulationstravel. InmycourseonindigenouspoliticsofLatinAmerica,mystudents usuallyarrivewithgeneralknowledgeoftheMexicanZapatistasand
BolivianIndigeneityinJapan:FolklorizedMusicPerformance 251
this movement’s great cultural translator, Subcomandante Marcos. Marcos’ssharp-edgedwritings(1995)havedonemuchtoconnecttourist worlds with this Mexican social movement that carries a distinctly indigenous face. Tourists may enjoy the indigenous connections of thismovementandappropriateitsimageforarepresentationofthe exotic(Martin2004:119),buteventhegreatestskeptics(seeGómezPeña2000)havecometoseepositiveoutcomesinZapatista-inspired tourism.However,beforeMorales’s2005electoralvictory,mystudents usuallyarrivedwithnoknowledgeofMoralesorQuispeasinternational representativesofBolivianindigeneity,andtourismtoBoliviahasnot includedsolidaritymoveswiththeKataristasorcocaleros.Nevertheless, mostofmystudentshaveheardaponcho-cladAndeanbandplaying on the streets or in a subway of some cosmopolitan urban context. This chapter explores this other circulation of indigeneity, one that seemsratherdisconnectedfromthepressingindigenouspoliticsofthe contemporaryBoliviancontextandonethatistoooftendismissedas merecommodificationoftheexotic. WithintheJapanesecontext,indigeneitybecomesapointofidentificationbetweenBolivianmusicians,whodonotusuallyidentifyas indigenous,andJapaneseenthusiastsofthese“Andean”traditions. Rather than dismiss these representational practices as merely indigenousventriloquism,Iwanttoconsiderthemasfolklorization— as a genre of indigenous voice that shapes global impressions of Bolivian indigeneity and that may have worked, until recently, to foreclose the international circulation of other Bolivian genres of indigenous voice. First, I address the folklorization of indigenous expressions as a national project and detail how Bolivian music arrivedinJapanthroughnewvalorizationsofimaginedindigenous and “Andean” expressions. Second, I address how representations of Bolivian indigeneity have changed in Bolivia and the extent to which these transformations have made it to Japanese stages. Finally, I consider the symbolic work of Japanese identifications withthisfolklorizedindigeneitythatremainssodisjointedfromthe pressingdemandsofindigenoussocialmovementsincontemporary Bolivia.
NationalFolklorizationthroughWorldTours While Japanese folklore musicians today will talk about the central placeofBolivianmusicwithinAndeantraditions,theyveryfrequently mention that their own interests in this music were first ignited by
252
Michelle Bigenho
hearing Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel’s rendition of “El condor pasa.”JustastheArgentinetangohadtogothroughUSandEuropean metropolesonitswaytoaJapanesemarket(Savigliano1995),Bolivian musicthatbecamefolkloreinJapan,hadtopassthroughmetropoles thatwerequitedistantfromtheimaginedsourcesofthismusic.These “schizophonic” shifts (Feld 1994, 1996) were not just about getting themusicoutthereandfinallyheardbyawideglobalaudience.Itwas aboutanincreasedvalueattributedtoindigenousculturalreferences thatcame,inpart,throughacircuitousrouteofforeignassociations. “El condor pasa” is a composition by the Peruvian Daniel Alomía Robles (1871–1942). Alomía Robles traveled extensively in Peru, collected folklore of his country, studied classical music, and lived formanyyearsintheUnitedStates.OnecouldviewAlomíaRobles’s compositionwithintheindigenistaexpressionsoftheperiod,asmusic that was inspired by indigenous expressions, crafted within certain principles of Western musical forms, and then presented as part of regionalornationalidentities.1 Folklorizationofindigenousexpressionshasoftenbeeninterpreted as a uniform attempt to paper over a hierarchical divide between whites and Indians that has marked Latin American societies since colonization.Withoutdisagreeingwiththisgeneralinterpretation,I want to complicate this overall story. The folklorization tale draws on international artistic interactions that crafted Bolivian “national music” and “Andean music” out of indigenous inspirations. From the late 1930s, several mestizo–creole (glossed as nonindigenous or white) women vocalists began to put aside the popular “foreign” genres of the time (i.e., vals, tango, and bolero) and to take on the self-ascribedrolesoffolklorepioneers,transformingsoundsthatwere previouslydislikedbytheirownsocialclassesintoBoliviannational music,makingexpressionsofmarginalizedIndianmusictherootofa mestizo–creolepatrioticcore(seeBigenho2005).FollowingtheChaco Warofthe1930s,the1952Revolutionnotonlymovedmarginalized Indianexpressionstothecenterofanationalistculturalproject,but alsobroughtuniversalsuffrage,universaleducation,theabolitionof the hacienda system (Agrarian Reform of 1953), the nationalization ofmines,theunionizationofpeasants,andanationalistdiscourseof mestizaje(glossedasadiscourseofracialandculturalmixing).Within relativelyrecentlyformedpoliticalparties,themarginalizedfleshand blood“Indians”cameunderthenewlabelof“peasants”([campesinos]; Albó1987:381),andthesymbolicworldofindiannessmovedintothe serviceofsymbolicallyrepresentingthenation.
BolivianIndigeneityinJapan:FolklorizedMusicPerformance 253
National folklorization of indigenous expressions was evident in popularstagedmusicalreviewslikeFantasíaBoliviana(BolivianFantasy)— a1955productionthatwasorganizedthroughthegovernment-backed BolivianMotionPictureInstitute.Theproductionfeatureddifferent music and dance traditions of Bolivia, and toured Bolivian cities as well as Asunción (Paraguay), Montevideo (Uruguay), and Buenos Aires (Argentina) (Cerruto Moravek 1996). Although the ideas of Bolivian Fantasy fit the mestizo Revolutionary project like a glove, its 60 participants came from varied backgrounds—mestizo–creoles as well as indigenous Aymaras, and several key protagonists in this productionhadculturalandartistictieswithBuenosAires(Bigenho 2006a). Inthe1960s,SimonandGarfunkelsharedastageinPariswiththe group“LosIncas”anditwasherethatthesingersfirstheard“Elcondor pasa.” (see Meisch 2002: 138). The duo rearranged the piece, added theirownlyrics(“I’dratherbeasparrowthanasnail.”),andreleased thesongtoanenthusiasticworldaudience.OnSimonandGarfunkel’s album,AlomíaRoblesiscreditedasoneofthreecomposersofthetune (alongwithPaulSimonandJorgeMilchberg;1972).InPaulSimon’s concertrecordingLiveRhymin’(1974)Simonisjoinedinseveraltunes byhisParisconnection,thenusingthename“Urubamba,”andSimon presentsthembymentioningthatthisensembleintroducedhimto “SouthAmericanmusic”in1965,andthattheirgroup’snameisthat ofariverthat“runspastthelastIncacity,MachuPicchuinPeru.”A greatdealofambiguitysurroundstheseschizophonicpracticesthatare bothcritiquedas“culturalimperialism”and“culturalappropriation,” andpraisedas“transculturalinspiration”or“borrowing”(Feld1996: 14;Meisch2002:182).FromthereleaseofSimonandGarfunkel’ssong tothepresentday,“Elcondorpasa,”inavarietyofinterpretations,has becomethepiecethatmostforeignersrequesttohearfromAndean musicians.ItisalsothepiecethatBoliviansoftendislikeplaying—for nationalistreasons(“Itisn’tevenBolivian!”),andforreasonsofburnout. InJapan,“Elcondorpasa”isalmostalwaysontheprogramofaBolivian musicperformance,andthepieceisoftenrequiredimplicitlyaspart ofthecontractfortouringJapan. AtaboutthesametimeSimonandGarfunkelmadetheirhit,aSwiss man,GilbertFavre(alsoknownas“ElGringoFavre”),wasmakingquite asensationinBoliviawithhisinterpretationofthequena.Itwouldbe wrongtogivetheimpressionthatthenewvaluegiventoindigenous expressionscameonlythroughforeignassociations.IfIsingleoutFavre inmydiscussionofhowAndeanmusicmadeittotheglobalmarket,
254
Michelle Bigenho
IdosobecauseBolivianmusiciansonmanyoccasionshavedoneso whentheyspeakabouttheinternationalboominAndeanmusic.Asa BolivianlivinginJapantoldme:“WhenElGringo[Favre]steppedout ...itwassomethingrevolutionary....Thequenawasdressedingala clothes!Agringoplayedit!Sothepeoplesaid,‘Listen,ifagringoplays itwecanplayit.’That’showitwasatthattime.”Withthiscomment, themusicianreferredtotheongoingracisminBoliviathatcontinued to discredit “Indian things” until foreigners gave these instruments and expressions new cachet. “El Gringo” Favre played quena with “LosJairas,”aBolivianensemblefoundedinthemid-1960s.WhenLos JairasappearedontheBolivianmusicscene,theybuiltontheongoing process of folklorizing indigenous musical expressions, developing virtuosity on the iconic “Andean” instruments of quena, zampoña, andcharango,andspecificallyshapingasmallensemblethatfitthe logisticsofinternationaltravelandperformance.LosJairasinparticular wouldformthemodelofthe“pan-Andeanbands”thatwouldbecome ubiquitousinaglobalmarket(Céspedes1984).ThemusiciansinLos JairasincludedErnestoCavouroncharango,GilbertFavreonquena, Edgar“Yayo”Joffréonvocals,andJulioGodoyonguitar.2LosJairas wenttoGenevain1969andseveralmemberssettledinEuropeasthe Andeanmusicboomtookoffinthisregion.3Cavourwasthefirstperson toleavetheensembleandreturntoBolivia,andhewouldeventually playakeyroleinpopularizingAndeanmusicinJapan. As Bolivian folklore was taking off in Europe, Bolivians at home werelivingthroughseveralmilitaryregimesthatoftenclashedwith popular mining sectors. The Military–Peasant Pact, initiated by the governmentofRenéBarrientosOrtuñointhemid-1960sandlasting intotheearly1980s,wasdesignedtoco-optandcontroltheagricultural sectorandtopitpeasantsagainstpopularurbansectorsandminers. With the exception of the above-mentioned Kataristas, indigenous politicsofthisperiodseemedratherhiddenwithinthepoliticalscene,as politicsproceededthroughColdWarstructuresofclassorganizingand anticommunism.Withthispoliticalbackdrop,thecontactsbetween BoliviansandJapaneseemergedinArgentina,fromanintricatecircuit of musicians, their different sonorous productions, and particular imaginingsaboutexoticinstrumentsbelievedtobeconnectedtoan indigenousAndeanworld.JapaneseandBolivianmusicianstalkabout theinitialpresenceinJapanofUñaRamos,anArgentinequenaplayer. Hewasfollowedby“LosLaikas”andthenCavour—Bolivianmusicians whoallreceivedtheirfirstinvitationstoJapanbasedonthemeritsof theirplayingwithinthecontextoftheArgentinefolkloreboom.Bythe
BolivianIndigeneityinJapan:FolklorizedMusicPerformance 255
1980s,Bolivianmusiciansweretravelingdirectlyfromtheircountryto JapanandJapanesefolkloremusicianscametoseeBoliviaastheheart ofwhatiscalled“Andeanmusic.”
RepresentingBolivianIndigeneityinJapan FewoftheBolivianmusicianswhotraveltoJapanself-identifyasindigenousandforthosewhodo,theirworkinthemusicalworldhas pulledthemintotheambiguitiesofamestizoworld.Thissaid,Bolivian musicianswouldoftendescribepassionatelyapointofself-identification withrepresentationsofindigenousmusic;oftenthesenarrativeswere aboutdiscoveringthenationalculturalselfasonebegantomusically perform“Bolivia”withinaforeigncontext(e.g.,Brazil,Argentina,the UnitedStates,France,Japan).JustastheHmong/Miao,awayfromhome andwiththeviewfromafar,structuredtheirnativenessintheirmedia practices(Schein,thisvolume),severalBolivianmusiciansdiscovered theindigenoussideoftheirBoliviannessbyplayingmusicoutsideof theirnationalterritory.Ontheonehand,fromthe1960stothe1980s, indigeneity was referenced internationally through the instruments usedinthepan-Andeanbands.Ontheotherhand,beginninginthe mid-1970sandmovingintothe1990s,Bolivianmusicians’imperative athomewastoconductresearchinthecountryside,tostudytheprecise waysthatdifferentindigenousinstrumentswereplayed,andtoreplicate thatperformancepracticeinanurbansetting. AthomeinBolivia,thetroupe-styleperformanceofhighlandindigenouswindinstrumentsbecameoneofthesenewmarkersof“authentic” indigenousmusicperformance.Twelveto20musiciansperformasingle kindofinstrument,theplayersvaryingonlyinthesizeandregister oftheinstrumentstheyplay.TheBolivianrockband“Wara”greatly boostedthistrendwhen,in1975,theyrecordedinterludesofindigenous troupe-styleperformancewithintheirownrockcompositions(1975). ThemusicalrepresentationofindigeneityinBoliviahasbecomemarked bythistroupe-styleplaying,andthesepracticesprovidewaysthatyoung people in La Paz, sons and daughters of Aymara migrants, come to express their urban indigenous identity (Archondo 2000; Bigenho 2002:109–113).Thesetransformationsinmusicalrepresentationsof indigeneityarenotasquicktoentertheJapaneseperformancecontext. When Bolivian musicians tour Japan today, their performances still resemblethesolo-drivenpan-Andeanmodel,evenifJapanesemusicians withinthesemusicaltraditionshavebecomeexpertsindistinguishing thecomplexityofdifferentBolivianmusicperformancestyles.Inthis
256
Michelle Bigenho
section,IdiscusstransformationsofindigeneitythatoccurasBolivian bandsmovefromtheirlocalperformancecontexttothestagesofJapan. IdrawfromtheinterviewsIconductedwithBolivianmusicianswho havetouredJapan,andIwillfocusontheperformancesof“Música deMaestros”or“MusicoftheMasters”—theensemblewithwhichI touredandperformedin2002. InthecaseofMusicoftheMasters,theinvitationtotourJapanarrived directlytotheensemble’sfounderanddirector,ZacaríasEncinas.The JapanesecompanyoriginallywantedtocontractEncinasasaquena soloist with his accompanying musicians. Encinas chose instead to foreground what for him has been his favorite musical project, the ensembleMusicoftheMasters.InBolivia,MusicoftheMastersusually includesmorethan24musicians:guitars,mandolins,concertina,cello, viola,violins,charango,quenas,andzampoñas.Thisensembleformed inthe1980swiththeagendaofrecordingtheworksofBolivianmaster composers. Their name consciously references the Western classical conceptof“greatcomposers,”buttheensemblealsoextendstheidea ofcomposershipfrominspiredindividualstoindigenousgroupswithin Bolivia.Theirinitialrecordingsemphasizedmusicalcompositionsofthe 1930s,aperiodconsideredtomarkagoldenageformusiccomposed withingenresthatcarrymoremestizo–creoleassociationsthanindigenous ones. But the ensemble also considers music of indigenous associationandtheirrecordingshaveemphasizedageographicspread that attempts to represent musically both highland and lowland indigeneity(seeBigenho2002:121–135). OnlyfiveBolivianmusiciansoftheensembletraveltoJapan,asignificantreductioninthegroup’ssizethatstirsjealousyathomeandalso significantlylimitstheirabilitytoperformpiecesinthetroupestyle. MusicoftheMastersalsohastouredFrance,Germany,Switzerland,and China.Althoughmanyoftheseothertoursweremoreabout“showing one’s music,” tours built around festivals that work more through discoursesof“sharingone’sculture”thanaboutawell-remunerated contract(Bigenho2002:84–95),musicworkinJapanisoveralloneofthe bestremuneratedgigsforBolivianmusicians.MusicianswhogotoJapan withthisgrouparealreadyinratherflexibleandunstablelaborrelations athome:playinggigsinnightclubswithmultipleensembles,teaching music, making recordings, and preparing new repertoire. Earnings fromworkinJapancansignificantlyshiftmusicians’homeeconomic situationoutofperpetualprecariousness(seeBigenho2006b). Asareducedensemble,MusicoftheMasterstoursJapanforthreemonthperiods,underthesponsorshipofasmallJapanesecompany.The
BolivianIndigeneityinJapan:FolklorizedMusicPerformance 257
companyorganizesdifferentculturalactivitiesforschoolpresentations and for concerts in regular theaters. In three months, Music of the Mastersmightgive70–90performances,mostoftheminschools.The companypaystheBolivians’airfares,arrangesfortheirvisas,provides alltransportationandhotelaccommodations,andpaysbothadaily itemforfoodand,atthecloseofthetour,afixedsumforthework duringthethreemonths. My participation on this tour was ten years in the making. I first becameinvolvedwithMusicoftheMastersin1993whenIlivedfortwo yearsinBoliviaconductingmydoctoraldissertationresearch.Sincethat time,IhavebeenperformingandrecordingwithMusicoftheMasters onannualreturntripstoBolivia.WhenIwasapproachingasemester sabbaticalatHampshireCollegethatcoincidedwithoneofthesetours, I asked the director if I could join them, paying my own way and donatingmyperformancestothetour.Inotherwords,Iwouldnotbe takingtheplaceofapaidBolivianmusician.Thedirectorwasthrilled atthepossibility,butmypresenceonthetourhadtobevettedbythe Japanese company. The initial contact with the company had come throughaJapanesemusician,KojiHishimoto,whohadlivedforseven yearsinBolivia,workedasakeyperformeronquenaandzampoñas, andcreatedmanyofthemusicalarrangementsforMusicoftheMasters. WhenHishimotoreturnedtoJapan,heobtainedemploymentasaguide andtranslatorwiththisJapaneseculturalperformancecompany.While the company also sponsored Japanese cultural presentations, both withinJapanandinternationally,agoodpartoftheirworkfocusedon contractingforeignculturalperformancesforJapaneseschoolsettings. MusicalandtheatricalgroupswereinvitedfromChina,Korea,Mexico, Russia, Norway, Kenya, and Australia. According to Hishimoto and anotheremployeeofthecompany,thegovernmentrecommendsthat schoolssponsoratleastoneoftheseinternationalculturalperformances eachyear. WhenHishimotofirstbegantoworkforthecompany,hewanted to perform with the Bolivian bands on tour. Within Bolivia he had alreadygainednotorietyasoneofthebestinterpretersofquenaand zampoña,butittookafewyearsofworkbeforetheJapanesecompany wouldallowhimtomovebeyondtheroleofculturaltranslator,and actuallyjointheBoliviansonthemusicperformancestage.Inasimilar way,myparticipationwiththebandstirredsomecontroversybefore myarrivalin2002.Perceptionsofculturalpurityhauntedthisdispute astheJapanesecompanyworriedthattheBolivianband’sauthenticity wouldbecompromisedbymypresenceinthegroup.Liketheinsistence
258
Michelle Bigenho
on cultural purity within other niche music markets of Japan (see Hosokawa 2002: 298–303), the cultural otherness of Bolivian music wassupposedtobeunclutteredbyanythingoranyonewhowasnot essentiallyBolivian.Idonotknowhowtheycametothedecisionto acceptmypresenceonthetour,buttheydid,andImetupwiththe BolivianmusiciansinTokyoonahotsummerevening. Our performances on this tour always began with the highland indigenousreferencesthatJapanesehavecometoassociatewithAndean music.“Elcondorpasa”wasthefirstpieceweperformedandHishimoto introduced our interpretation with explanatory discourse about the South American region, the existence of the Andes mountains, and thelocationofBoliviaintheregion.Duringtheentirefirsthalfofour performances,weworecostumesthatwereassociatedwithhighland indigeneity—not specific costumes from distinct villages but rather genericwidegatheredskirtsorwhitepants,andcolorfullywovenbelts, hats,andbags.InBolivia,membersofMusicoftheMastersdidnotwear thisattire,butratherdonnedamoremestizo–creolelookofblackpants, whiteshirts,blackvests,andfedorahats.Theensemblehadtocitethe worldofhighlandindigeneitytheJapanesehavecometoassociate,not necessarilywithBolivia,butwith“theAndes.”Worldperformancesof Bolivianmusicworkunderthis“reiterativepowerofdiscourse”that constrainstheperformers’acts(Butler1993:2). IfcitinghighlandAndeanindigeneitythrough“Elcondorpasa”got themthroughthedoortotheseJapaneseperformancecontracts,Music of the Masters hardly stopped there. During the second half of the show,theensemblefeaturedmusicofAfricanBolivian,mestizo–creole, lowlandindigenous,andChaqueñaassociations,andforthispartofthe show,wewouldchangeintoour“regular”mestizo–creolelook,what wealwaysworewhenperforminginBolivia.Imovedfromawoman’s dress during the first half of the program, to a man’s clothes in the secondhalfoftheprogram.Theonlyotherwomanonthetourwould change into the costume of African Bolivians, then into a costume ofacholitapaceña,4andthenfinallyintoalongflowingskirtforthe performanceofmusicfromtheChacoregion.Thesekindsofcostume changeswereparticulartotheperformancesinJapanandhavenotbeen partofourperformancepracticesinBolivia.CostumechangesinJapan were,ontheonehand,aboutshowmanshipandspectacle.Butonthe otherhand,theywerealsoaboutEncinas’sconsistentdesiretoshow worldaudiencesthatBolivianmusicwentfarbeyondtheubiquitous pan-Andeanbandswhosefringedponchoshavebecomeiconicinthe international representation of this country’s music. His perspective
BolivianIndigeneityinJapan:FolklorizedMusicPerformance 259
representedanalternativepursuitofauthenticity,anattempttoperform his concept of a multicultural Bolivia and evidence that these performancesareconstrainedbutneverfullydeterminedinadvance (Butler1993:95).MusicoftheMastersrarelymadecostumechangesin Bolivia,butonnationalaswellasinternationalstages,themulticultural musicperformancewastheongoingprojectoftheensemble. Evenwithinthepresentationofthismusicalvariety,thefocusremainedontheexoticinstruments.Duringthefirsthalfoftheshow, weperformedasegmentthatwasintroducedas“theAymarafiesta” andthatfeaturedourplayingofdistinctinstrumentsthatareusually performedinthetroupestyle(tarka,pinquillo,andzampoña).Atone pointtwomusicianswouldleavethestageandreturninkusillocostumes (ajestingfigurethatappearswithinsomeAymararegions),playingthe pinquilloinstrument,andliterallyactingoutthepartofthekusillo. Althoughthisdramatizationofhighlandindigeneitygavemanymore detailsthanonemightencounterinawatered-downversionofAndean folklore, it is difficult for a group of seven musicians to achieve the sonorous effect of a full troupe-style performance. Throughout this research,Ihaveonlyheardofonecompletetroupethatmadeabrief tourofJapan.Becauseofthedailycostsofmaintainingmusicianson theroad,companiesrarelyseemtomovebeyondthesponsorshipof fiveorsixmusicians. DuringtwopartsofMusicoftheMasters’performance,theensemble would leave the stage and Hishimoto would explain some of the instruments that were unknown to the Japanese audiences, having theindividualmusiciansdemonstratetheiruse,andaskingthestudents iftheycouldguesscertainmaterialsthatwereusedtoconstructthe instruments.PerformingindigenousBolivianmusicinJapanwasabout performinganexoticOther,butforBoliviansandJapanesetherewas something intimate about the cultural distances being represented. ThroughoutthewiderinterpretationofthisworkwithBoliviansand Japanese,Ifindusefultheconceptof“intimatedistance”bywhichI refertoabroadsetofissues,includingfolklorization,throughwhich Bolivians and Japanese, at the meeting place of Bolivian music performance,simultaneouslyfindpointsofintimacyandgreatdifference between their ways of being in the world. In organizing our show, HishimotoattemptedtodrawacommonthreadbetweenaJapanese sonorousenvironmentandaBolivianone.Duringthedemonstration ofthequenaornotchedflute,Hishimotowouldshowtheshakuhachi, a Japanese notched flute. Throughout my fieldwork, Japanese and Boliviansconsistentlydrewlinesofsimilaritybetweenthis“traditional”
260
Michelle Bigenho
JapaneseinstrumentandtheAndeannotchedflute.Aftercomparing the quena and shakuhachi, Hishimoto and Encinas would interpret onquenasthesongthatrunsthroughthecreditsofHayaoMiyazaki’s popularJapaneseanimatedfilm—SpiritedAway. Theinitialphraseof thetunealwaysprovokedareactionofgleefulsurprise,asthestudents heardaknowntuneonaninstrumentthatwasunknownyetsomehow familiar. Otherpartsoftheshowweredesignedtoconnectunknowninstrumentstoknownsonorousenvironments.WhenVictorHugoGironda demonstratedthepanpipes,heplayedatuneoftenheardinJapanese supermarketsasanadvertisingjingleforsellingfish.Backstage,Gironda would refer to this part of the show as “going to sell fish,” and his intervention was guaranteed to provoke laughter from the younger audiences.Iffrombackstageweheardnoresponsetotheplayingof this ditty on the panpipes, we knew we had a difficult audience to please. The aesthetic strategies at work in meeting the expectations of Japanese audiences included making this Bolivian music seem less Other,foregroundingpieceswithstraightforwardrhythmicpatterns, anddesigningaprogramthataimedtoproduceaudienceidentification andparticipation.Thestrangeandexoticwasmadeapproachableby featuring Bolivian instruments that were “like traditional Japanese ones,”andbyreferencingfamiliarsonorouslandscapesofsupermarkets, Japaneseanimatedfilms,andpopularJapanesesongs.Boliviancultural work for Japanese school audiences entailed a transformation of a nationalistmusicprojectanditssubstitutionbyanimaginedindigenous voiceoftheAndes.Bolivianmusicianshadtocitetheexpected,but theiroverallpresentationwentbeyondtheselimits.
JapaneseIdentificationwithFolklorizedIndigeneity TheJapanesehavegainedareputationforgettingdeeplyinvolvedin many different musical traditions of Others—jazz, salsa, blue grass, tango,hiphop,andsoforth(seeAtkins2001;Condry2001;Hosokawa 2002; Mitsui 1993; Savigliano 1995). Japanese interest in Bolivian music began in the 1960s trajectory I described earlier. Under very differentconditionsfromthoseinwhichBolivianmusicianstoured, JapanesetraveledtoBoliviaastouristsandvolunteersfortheJapanese government.Theytraveledinsearchofsomethingthatinspiredthem inthesemusicalsounds.Whilesomeofthemwenthomeafterashort tripandperhapsstartedahobbygroupofAndeanmusicbackinTokyo,
BolivianIndigeneityinJapan:FolklorizedMusicPerformance 261
others remained in Bolivia for extended periods of time, forming a noticeablepresencewithinthecommunityofBolivianmusicians.Next tothemyriadofencounterswithothers’music,BolivianmusicinJapan ishardlysignificantstatistically,butthepresenceofJapanesemusicians in the Bolivian music context and the Bolivian musicians’ tours of Japanareofconsiderablesignificance,andareparticularlyrevealing examplesofhowthisinterculturalnexustransformedaBolivianpolitical economyofmusic.OneBolivianmusicianfromCatavi,Potosíreferred toJapanesepresenceinBolivianmusicas“afriendlyinvasion.”Bolivian ensembleslike“Wara,”“LuzdelAnde,”“LosKharkas,”aswellasMusic oftheMastershaveallexperiencedasignificantpresenceofJapanese asperformingmusiciansandevenasdirectors.Alloftheseensembles, and a few others (“Ernesto Cavour y su Conjunto,” “Los Caballeros delFolklore,”“Kallawaya,”“GrupoAymara,”and“TaypiK’ala”)have benefitedfromtheremunerationofmusictoursinJapan. The most serious Japanese folklore musicians, like the best of the anthropological tribe, make their claims to having “been there,” in Bolivia:theydiscusstheirmusicaltraining;theylisttheyearstheyhave residedinBolivia,theynametheirmasterteachers;andtheynamethe groupswithwhichtheyhaveplayedandrecorded.Iwouldsuggestthat forthemoreseriousJapanesefolkloremusicians(thosewhohaveplayed intheensemblesImentionedandwhohavelivedinBoliviaforextended periods),amajorpointofidentificationisattheassumeduniversallevel of“musician.”TheseJapanesemusicianscomposeinBoliviangenres, expressdesirestocontributeartisticallytothetradition,innovatewithin these “traditions,” and, along with other Bolivian musicians, worry about the decline of Andean music in world markets. But Japanese folklore musicians will also describe formative moments when they wereparticipatinginBolivianritualcontexts,andwillcommenton theinspirationalindigenousconnectionsofthesemoments.Through ritualconnectionsandassociations,Japanesefolkloremusiciansand enthusiastswillidentifywitharepresentedindigeneity,buttheylocate their point of intersection in a past. By denying coevalness (Fabian 1983)toBolivianindigeneityasrepresentedinfolklore,Japanesecan identifywiththisnativeworldofdifferencewithoutcontradictingthe Japanesenarrativeofnationalhomogeneityandwithoutengagingwith theothergenresofindigenousvoiceasexpressedthroughthepressing demandsofEvoMoralesandFelipeQuispe. TheJapaneseuptakeoffolklorizedBolivianindigeneityhangsheavily onritualworlds,imaginedonesforthosewhohavenotbeeninBolivia, andexperiencedonesforthosewho“havebeenthere.”OneJapanese
262
Michelle Bigenho
charangoplayertoldmehisstory:hehadstudiedsociologyingraduate school and was teaching at a university in Japan when he gave up his job to live several years in Bolivia and study the charango. He hasacquiredadistinctivestyleoncharango,evencomposinghisown pieces in Bolivian genres. Although he was careful to mention that muchofthe“folklore”musicplayedinJapanhadmoreSpanishthan indigenousroots,heconcededthat“Thenativemusictheyplaybythe Lake[Titicaca]issomewhatlikethemusictheyplayinJapaneserituals.” Thecharangoplayer’sexpressionswerefarfromasimpleromanticized view of the Andean music world, but his classifications followed an obsessionwith“real”nativeorigins,andhedrewconnectionsbetween thatimaginedpurenative(oftenrural)spaceandhisperceptionsof Japaneseritualworlds. JapaneseimaginingsofBolivianindigenousritualseemtoemerge throughfeelingsofacrisisofauthenticityathome.InLaPaz,Imeta youngJapanesemanwhowentbythenickname“Apache,”amoniker thatcallsforthanotherimaginedindigenousconnection.Inourconversation,hedrewconnectionsbetweentheAndeanindigenousritual worldandaJapaneseritualworldthatheperceivedtobedisappearing inpost–WWIIJapan.InJapanhehadstudiedpoliticsandeconomics at the university. Then he worked as a plumber for six years before hittingtheroadwithhissavings.Duringhisgeneralworldtour,hehad settledinBoliviaforafewyears,learningBolivianwindinstruments andteachingJapanesedrumplaying.InhisdiscussionofBolivianmusic hepointedtoperceivedsimilaritiesbetweenindigenouslanguagesof AymaraandQuechuaandhisownnativeJapanese.Whenhefinishes travelingtheworld,hetoldme,heplanstoreturntoJapanandteach youngpeopleabouttheirroots,“theelementsofspiritthathavebeen lostwitheconomicdevelopment.”Bolivianindigeneityisnarrativized withinaJapanesepast—apastthatisperceivedtocontainsomething ofJapaneseness,somethingthatisthoughttobeslippingawaythrough Japan’smodernity. The ritual worlds of represented indigeneity also get taken up in theformof“newage”associations,onesthatseemedtofloatthrough Apache’s narrative, and that become a marketing strategy in Japan. InTokyo,ImetanotherJapanesemusicianwho,attheageof37,was makingquiteasuccessfulcareerasastarofAndeanpanpipemusicin Japan:performingconcerts,sellinghissignaturequenas,andsigning hisalbumsthathadtitleslikeSongsoftheWind(2000),Nieve([Snow] 1996),Luna([Moon]1997),ForestRain(1998),Silencio([Silence]1999), andjustplainAndes(2001).Althoughheisnotfondofthelabel,he
BolivianIndigeneityinJapan:FolklorizedMusicPerformance 263
said his music has been marketed under “what in the U.S. is called ‘New Age’ and what in Japan they call ‘Healing Music.’” His album titlesbringinreferencestothenaturalworldandthecompositionson theserecordingsplaceBolivianinstrumentsofindigenousassociation inrelationtothisworldofnaturalizedindigeneityandJapaneselonging fornature. ToputinperspectivehowJapaneseaudiencesandmusiciansrespond torepresentedBolivianindigeneneityitisusefultoexamineJapanese encounterswithalterity,andthestructuringoftheAinuastheaboriginal peopleofJapan.TheAinuofnorthernJapanareoftennarrativizedas thegeographicallymarginalinternalother,thenative,againstwhich Japanesenessbecamearticulated(seeHowell2005).TheAinuhavelived byhunting,fishing,andgathering,andinthiswaytheygoagainstthe grainofJapaneseagrarianmythsthatplaceJapaneseidentityinrelation totheagriculturalproductionofrice(Ohnuki-Tierney1998).Sincethe 19thcentury,theJapanesegovernmenthasimplementedassimilationist policiesliketheHokkaidoFormerAborigineProtectionAct(ineffect 1899–1997)thatprovidedagriculturallandtotheAinu,andencouraged themtobecomeagriculturalists(Howell2005:172).Today,theAinustill representJapan’sinternalexoticother(Ohnuki-Tierney1998:44),but withinoverarchingideologiesofJapanesehomogeneity.TheJapanese stateupholdsanideologyofahomogeneousnationalcommunityin whichhyphenatedcategoriesareavoidedandculturaldifferencesare classified through the dubious Japanese–foreigner dichotomy (Kelly 1991: 413; Masden 1997: 56). The myth of Japanese homogeneity, basedonthemetaphoricalassociationsof“Japaneseblood,”hascome underincreasingstrainwithinthecontextsofJapanesereturneesand foreignworkersinJapan(Roth2002;Yoshino1997).Aspluralization ofJapanesesocietychallengesthelong-standingmythofhomogeneity (Murphy-Shigematsu2000:215),manyoftheofficialpoliciesofthe JapaneseMinistryofEducationcontinuetoupholdthismyth(Masden 1997:29).Nexttoandinassociationwiththisstrongnationalideology of homogeneity, Japanese producers and consumers express strong desirestointernationalize(Yoshino1998:15).Infindingaconnection to an imagined Bolivian indigeneity, some Japanese are finding an internationalconnectionthatappearsasanalternativetothosewith theUnitedStatesorwiththeWest. JapaneseuptakeoffolklorizedBolivianindigeneityseemstobeabout theparadoxofwantingwhattheJapaneseperceivethemselvestobe losing in the modern world. The attitude of the Japanese musicians echoes that marked by Louisa Schein in her work on Hmong/Miao
264
Michelle Bigenho
diasporiclonging(thisvolume).Scheinlocatesthislongingaspartof a“worldwidemalaise”thatmotivatesthosewiththepowerofrepresentationtoengageinprojectsofculturalrecuperation,whileputting upshieldsagainsttoomuchcontactwithoutsiders(thisvolume).The imaginednativesubjectofthepastcreatesagreatnostalgicpackage andalongingthatcanneverbetotallysatisfied.Identificationwith imaginedBolivianindigeneityhardlycontradictsJapan’sideologiesof homogeneity,astieswithfolklorizedindigeneityarelocatedinforeign landsandinmythicalpasts.
Conclusions:FolklorizedIndigeneityandLonging Inthischapter,IhavepresentedthemusicalconstructionsoftheAndean nativeasrepresentedonJapanesestages,andthenexusthatBolivian andJapanesemusiciansdiscursivelyconstructbetweentheirworlds.I haveunderscoredtwoironiesinthisparticularuptakeofindigeneity: (1)theabsenceofindigenoussubjectsintheperformancespacewhere folklorizedindigeneitybecomesasharedpointofcontactforBolivianand Japanesemusicians,and(2)thechasmbetweenthisgenreofindigenous voiceandtheothergenresthatframecontemporaryindigenoussocial movementsinBolivia.Thereisathirdironytoconsider.Nostalgiaforthe nativeisusuallyarticulatedthroughWestern–non-Westerndiscursive practices(seeHall2002).Whetheritisthediscussionofauthenticity “madepossiblebythemetanarrativeofprogress”(Errington1998:5), theidentificationwiththeotherthatreplacesthedepartedloveobject (Fuss1995),ortheconcernwith“endangeredauthenticities(Clifford 1988: 5), all of these ways of framing Western identity and loss in postcolonialmodernitydependontheproductionofthenativeasthe “symptomofthewhiteman”(Chow1994:127). But what is to be made of a Japanese nostalgia for the native, a supposedlynon-Westernsubject’slongingforthewaysofanothersocalled non-Western subject? I would suggest that insights into this inquiry require a second look at modernity and particularly at how the different histories of colonialism and nationalism have shaped distinctperceptionsofindigeneity.Spanishcolonialorganizationsleft a hierarchical divide between Indians and whites, one of the most debilitating legacies of the Conquest (Hale 1994), and a legacy that persists in contemporary nation-states of the Andean region (see Canessa2005;Weismantel2001).Sincetheearly20thcentury,Bolivian nationalismhasincludedthesymbolicworkofrepresentingfolklorized indigeneity and part of this folklorization process was articulated
BolivianIndigeneityinJapan:FolklorizedMusicPerformance 265
throughinternationalcontactsandassociations.TheBolivianpageant that celebrates folklorized indigeneity is not completely outside of assimilationist politics. In fact, Bolivian folklorization processes of the1950sdevelopedparalleltothenationalistideologyofmestizaje that claimed national inclusiveness through an erasure of cultural differences.Withtheneoliberalreformsofthe1980sandthe1990s, “mestizaje”wasreplacedby“multiculturalism,”butsuchpoliticshave been viewed suspiciously by indigenous groups (Rivera Cusicanqui 2003b; Gustafson 2002). With the baggage of its colonial heritage, Boliviannationalismcontinuestoswingbackandforthsimultaneously, orvibrate,betweenthepolesofmulticulturalismandassimilation,even asinpracticenotallofthiscountry’scitizensreceiveequalinvitationsto thenationalbanquet.TheBolivian“imaginedcommunity”(Anderson 1991),likethatofotherLatinAmericannations,sustainsdependent andsubordinaterelationsasacentralpartofitsnationalistproject(see Lomnitz2000). Japanesenationalismemergesinadifferentway,throughanarrative ofcultural–racialhomogeneityinwhichlocalnatives(theAinu)are expected to become Japanese by transforming themselves into agriculturalists.Japanesehistoriographyhasunderscoredtheambivalent positionofJapan’snationalidentitywithindiscoursesofEastandWest (see Tanaka 1993), and Koichi Iwabuchi has suggested that “Japan’s modernnationalidentityhas...alwaysbeenimaginedinanasymmetrical totalizing triad between ‘Asia,’ ‘the West,’ and ‘Japan,’” in which“theWest”stoodforthemodernotherand“Asia”forJapan’s past (2002: 7). Framed within these arguments that decenter any straightforward East–West dichotomy, Japanese identifications with folklorizedBolivianindigeneityseemtoresembletheWestern-to-nonWesternpatternwithoutfallingcompletelywithinit. Ifidentificationis“thedetourthroughtheotherthatdefinestheself” (Fuss1995:2),bothBolivianandJapanesemusiciansmadethisdetour in identifying Bolivian and Japanese selves. Bolivian national music emergedthroughglobalcontactsthatcreatedlimitsandexpectations of indigenous performance, but Bolivians’ performances were not completely determined by this existing external discourse. Japanese musiciansandenthusiastsofAndeanmusicfirstenteredtheworldof Bolivianmusicthroughthreeinstrumentsthatgloballycametostand forAndeanindigeneity:quena,panpipes,andcharango.Althoughthe expertsmovedbeyondthissimpletrio,thetriostuckintheimaginaries of the wider population, and also proved malleable to a process of globalcommodificationandinternationalperformancetours.Inthe
266
Michelle Bigenho
intercultural nexus between Bolivian and Japanese musicians, both groups seemed to commune with an imagined indigenous world as locatedinapast,andasdisconnectedfromcontemporaryindigenous politicsinBolivia.AlthoughtheJapaneseidentificationwithBolivian folklorized indigeneity expresses a nostalgia for things perceived to bedisappearinginJapan’strajectorythroughmodernity,theBolivian identification with folklorized indigeneity has been a central part of symbolic nation-making—also a part of modernity—even as this project has excluded socioeconomically the majority of those who mightself-identifyasindigenous.AstheworldregistersEvoMorales asrepresentativeofanindigenousvoiceoutofBolivia,onewonders howthisgenrewilldifferfromthatofAndeanmusic,andhowboth genresofindigenousvoiceultimatelydependontheglobalcirculation ofmultipleandinterconnectedformsofindigeneity.
Notes Acknowledgments. For their insights and stimulating discussion I would like tothanktheparticipantsoftheconference“IndigenousExperienceToday.” IamgratefultoMarisoldelaCadenaandOrinStarn,theconferenceorganizers who first gave me the opportunity to participate in this intellectual exchangeandwhosefeedbackhelpedmeinmyrevisions.Ihavealsobenefited tremendously from comments and suggestions from Andrew Canessa, Julie Hemment,BethNotar,JoshuaRoth,BarbaraYngvesson,andananonymous reviewer for Berg. I am also indebted to Rolando Encinas whose continued willingnesstowelcomemeintohisensemblehasmadepossibleseveralunique fieldworkexperiences,includingmyworkasa“Bolivian”musicianinJapan. Ofcourse,Iamultimatelyresponsibleforanyshortcomingsinthisanalysis. InitialresearchinBoliviawasfundedbyFulbright(1993)andFulbright-Hays (1994)grants.ResearchinJapanwasmadepossiblebyaWhitingFoundation Grant(2003)andasemestersabbaticalleavefromHampshireCollege(2002). SummerresearchtripstoBoliviahavebeenpossiblewithHampshireCollege facultydevelopmentgrantsinsummers1999–2002and2004. 1. Indigenismo,asapoliticsofculture,tookdifferentpathswithindifferent national contexts. For details from the Peruvian context, see Marisol de la Cadena(2000)ZoilaMendoza(2004)andDeborahPoole(1997).Fordetails
BolivianIndigeneityinJapan:FolklorizedMusicPerformance 267
fromtheBoliviancontext,seeJosefaSalmón(1997),JavierSanjinés(2004), andMichelleBigenho(2006a). 2. AlfredoDominguezwouldjointhegroupasaninvitedguestguitarist. 3. Gilbert Favre died in 1998 but a group in France called “Los Gringos” holdsanannualcelebrationinhishonor,bringingtogethermanymusicians whohadcontactwithElGringo(personalcommunication,ZacaríasEncinas, 2004). 4. The term chola, as a loaded racial category between Indian and white, has its own accompanying set of pejorative uses, fantasies, and fears (see Weismantel2001).
ReferencesCited Albó,Xavier.1987.FromMNRistastoKataristastoKatari.InResistance, rebellion,andconsciousnessintheAndeanpeasantworld:18thto20th centuries,editedbySteveJ.Stern,379–419.Madison:Universityof WisconsinPress. ——.1999.Igualesaunquediferentes:Haciaunaspolíticasinterculturales ylingüísticasparaBolivia.LaPaz:MinisteriodeEducación,UNICEF, CIPCA,CuadernosdeInvestigación52. Anderson,Benedict.1991.Imaginedcommunities:Reflectionsontheorigin andspreadofnationalism.Revisededition.London:Verso. Archondo,Rafael.2000.Existenciasfronterizas:ser“chango”enElAlto: entreelrockylossikuris.T’inkazos3(6):67–78. Atkins,E.Taylor.2001.BlueNippon:AuthenticatingjazzinJapan.Durham, NC:DukeUniversityPress. Bigenho,Michelle.2002.Soundingindigenous:AuthenticityinBolivian musicperformance.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan. ——.2005. Making music safe for the nation: Folklore pioneers in Bolivian indigenism. In Natives making nation: Gender, indigeneity, andthestateintheAndes,editedbyAndrewCanessa,60–80.Tucson: UniversityofArizonaPress. ——.2006a. Embodied matters: Bolivian Fantasy and indigenismo. JournalofLatinAmericanAnthropology11(2):267–293. ——.2006b.Laboringinthetransnationalculturemines:Theworkof BolivianmusicinJapan.InCultureanddevelopmentinaglobalising world:Geographies,actors,andparadigms,editedbySarahRadcliffe, 107–125.NewYork:Routledge. Butler,Judith.1993.Bodiesthatmatter:Onthediscursivelimitsof“sex.” NewYork:Routledge.
268
Michelle Bigenho
Canessa, Andrew. 2005. Introduction: Making the nation on the margins.InNativesmakingnation:Gender,indigeneity,andthestate intheAndes,editedbyAndrewCanessa,3–31.Tucson:Universityof ArizonaPress. ——.2006. “Todos somos indígenas”: Towards a new language of nationalpoliticalidentity.BulletinofLatinAmericanResearch25(2): 241–263. CerrutoMoravek,Karina.1996.Crónicashistóricasdocumentadas.LaPaz: LibreríaEditorial“Juventud.” Céspedes,GilkaWara.1984.NewcurrentsinmúsicafolklóricainLa Paz,Bolivia.LatinAmericanMusicReview5:217–242. Chow,Rey.1994.Wherehaveallthenativesgone?InDisplacements: Culturalidentitiesinquestion,editedbyAngelikaBammer,125–151. Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress. Clifford, James. 1988. The predicament of culture: Twentieth-century ethnography,literature,andart.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity Press. ——.2001.Indigenousarticulations.ContemporaryPacific13(2):468– 490. Condry,Ian.2001.Japanesehip-hopandtheglobalizationofpopular culture.InUrbanlife:Readingsintheanthropologyofthecity,edited byGeorgeGmelchandWalterZenner,357–387.ProspectHeights, IL:WavelandPress. delaCadena,Marisol.2000.Indigenousmestizos:Thepoliticsofraceand culture in Cuzco, Peru, 1919–1991. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Errington,Shelly.1998.Thedeathofauthenticprimitiveartandothertales ofprogress.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Fabian,Johannes.1983.TimeandtheOther:Howanthropologymakesits object.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress. Feld, Steven. 1994. From schizophonia to schismogenesis: On the discourses and commodification practices of “world music” and “world beat.” In Music grooves, by Charles Keil and Steven Feld, 257–289.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. ——.1996.Pygmypop:Agenealogyofschizophonicmimesis.Yearbook forTraditionalMusic28:1–35. Fuss,Diana.1995.Identificationpapers.NewYork:Routledge. Gómez-Peña,Guillermo.2000.Dangerousbordercrossers:Theartisttalks back.London:Routledge. Graham,LauraR.2005.ImageandinstrumentalityinaXavantepolitics ofexistentialrecognition:ThepublicoutreachworkofEtÉnhiritipa PimentelBarbosa.AmericanEthnologist32(4):622–641.
BolivianIndigeneityinJapan:FolklorizedMusicPerformance 269
Gustafson, Bret. 2002. Paradoxes of liberal indigenism: Indigenous movements,stateprocesses,andinterculturalreforminBolivia.In The politics of ethnicity: Indigenous peoples in Latin American States, editedbyDavidMaybury-Lewis,267–306.Cambridge,MA:Harvard UniversityPress. Hale, Charles. 1994. Between Che Guevara and the Pachamama: Mestizos, Indians, and identity politics in the anti-quincentenary campaign.CritiqueofAnthropology14(1):9–39. Hall, Stuart. 2002. The West and the rest: Discourse and power. In Development:Aculturalstudiesreader,editedbySusanneSchechand JaneHaggis,56–64.Oxford:Blackwell. Hosokawa,Shuhei.2002.Salsanotienefronteras:OrquestadelaLuz and the globalization of popular music. In Situating salsa: Global marketsandlocalmeaningsinLatinpopularmusic,editedbyLiseWaxer, 289–311.NewYork:Routledge. Howell,DavidL.2005.Geographiesofidentityinnineteenth-centuryJapan. Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Iwabuchi, Koichi. 2002. Recentering globalization: Popular culture and Japanesetransnationalism.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress. Kelly,WilliamW.1991.Directionsintheanthropologyofcontemporary Japan.AnnualReviewofAnthropology20:395–431. Léons,MadelineBarbara,andHarrySanabria.1997.Cocaandcocainein Bolivia:Realityandpolicyillusion.InCoca,cocaine,andtheBolivian reality,editedbyMadelineBarbaraLéonsandHarrySanabria,1–46. Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress. Lomnitz,Claudio.2001.DeepMexico,silentMexico:Ananthropologyof nationalism.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress. Marcos,Subcomandante.1995.Shadowsoftenderfury:Thelettersand communiqués of Subcomandante Marcos and the Zapatista Army of NationalLiberation,translatedbyFrankBardacke,LeslieLópez,and The Watsonville Human Rights Committee. New York: Monthly ReviewPress. Martin, Desirée A. 2004. “Excuse the inconvenience, but this is a revolution”: Zapatista paradox and the rhetoric of tourism. South CentralReview21(3):107–128. Masden, Kirk. 1997. The impact of ministry of education policy on pluralisminJapaneseeducation:Anexaminationofrecentissues.In EmergingpluralisminAsiaandthePacific,editedbyDavidY.H.Wu, HumphreyMcQueen,andYamamotoYasushi,29–63.HongKong: HongKongInstituteofAsia-PacificStudies–TheChineseUniversity ofHongKong.
270
Michelle Bigenho
Meisch, Lynn A. 2002. Andean entrepreneurs: Otavalo merchants and musiciansintheglobalarena.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress. Mendoza,Zoila.2004.Crearysentirlonuestro:LaMisiónPeruanade Arte Incaico y el impulso de la producción artístico-folklórica en Cusco.LatinAmericanMusicReview25(1):57–77. Mitsui,Toru.1993.ThereceptionofthemusicofAmericansouthern whitesinJapan.InTransformingtradition:Folkmusicrevivalsexamined, editedbyNeilV.Rosenberg,275–293.Chicago:UniversityofIllinois Press. Murphy-Shigematsu,Stephen.2000.Identitiesofmultiethnicpeoplein Japan,InJapanandglobalmigration:Foreignworkersandtheadventofa multiculturalsociety,editedbyMikeDouglassandGlendaS.Roberts, 196–216.London:Routledge. Ohnuki-Tierney,Emiko.1998.Aconceptualmodelforthehistorical relationshipbetweentheselfandtheinternalandexternalothers: The agrarian Japanese, the Ainu, and the special-status people. InMakingmajorities:ConstitutingthenationinJapan,Korea,China, Malaysia,Fiji,Turkey,andtheUnitedStates,editedbyDruC.Gladney, 31–51.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress. Patzi Paco, Felix. 2003. Rebelión indígena contra la colonialidad y la transnacionalización de la economía: Triunfos y vicisitudes del movimiento indígena desde 2000 a 2003. In Ya es otro tiempo el presente:Cuatromomentosdeinsurgenciaindígena,editedbyForrest Hylton,FelixPatzi,SergioSerulnikov,andSinclairThomson,199– 279.LaPaz:MueladelDiabloEditores. Poole,Deborah.1997.Vision,race,andmodernity:Avisualeconomyof theAndeanimageworld.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress. Postero,Nancy.2005.Indigenousresponsestoneoliberalism:Alookat theBolivianuprisingof2003.PoliticalandLegalAnthropologyReview 28(1):73–92. Ramos,AlcidaRita.1998.Indigenism:EthnicpoliticsinBrazil.Madison: UniversityofWisconsinPress. RiveraCusicanqui,Silvia.2003a.Lasfronterasdelacoca:Epistemologías colonialesycircuitosalternativosdelahojadecoca.Elcasodelafrontera Boliviana-Argentina.LaPaz:IDIS-UMSAyEdicionesAruwiyiri. ——.2003b[1984].Oprimidosperonovencidos:Luchasdelcampesinado aymarayqhechwadeBolivia,1900–1980,Connuevoprefaciodela autora.LaPaz:Aruwiyiri–Yachaywasi. Roth,JoshuaHotaka.2002.Brokeredhomeland:JapaneseBrazilianmigrants inJapan.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.
BolivianIndigeneityinJapan:FolklorizedMusicPerformance 271
Salmón,Josefa.1997.Elespejoindígena:EldiscursoindigenistaenBolivia 1900–1956.LaPaz:PluralEditores-UMSA. Sanjinés,Javier.2002.Mestizajeupsidedown:Subalternknowledges andtheknown.Nepantla:ViewsfromtheSouth3(1):39–60. ——.2004. Mestizaje upside-down: Aesthetic politics in modern Bolivia. Pittsburgh:UniversityofPittsburghPress. Savigliano, Marta E. 1995. Tango and the political economy of passion. Boulder,CO:WestviewPress. Segi,Takamasa.1996.Nieve.Tokyo:Polystar. ——.1997.Luna.Tokyo:Polystar. ——.1998.ForestRain.Sapporo,Japan:Polystar. ——.1999.Silencio.Sapporo,Japan:Polystar. ——.2000.SongsoftheWind.Tokyo:Polystar. ——.2001.Segi/Andes.Cochabamba,Bolivia:Polystar. Simon,Paul.1974.Liverhymin’:PaulSimoninconcert,withUrubamba andtheJessyDixonSingers.NewYork:WarnerBrothers. Simon, Paul, and Art Garfunkel. 1972. Simon and Garfunkel’s greatest hits.NewYork:ColumbiaCBS. Spedding,AlisonL.1997.Cocataki,taki-coca:Trade,traffic,andorganizedpeasantresistanceintheYungasofLaPaz.InCoca,cocaineandthe Bolivianreality,editedbyMadelineBarbaraLéonsandHarrySanabria, 117–137.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress. Tanaka,Stefan.1993.Japan’sorient:Renderingpastsintohistory.Berkeley: UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Thomson,Sinclair.2002.Wealonewillrule:NativeAndeanpoliticsinthe ageofinsurgency.Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress. Turner, Terence. 1991. The social dynamics of video media in an indigenoussociety:Theculturalmeaningandthepersonalpolitics ofvideomakinginKayapócommunities.VisualAnthropologyReview 7(2):68–76. Wara.1975.Maya/Paya.LaPaz:Discolandia. Weismantel,Mary.2001.Cholasandpishtacos:Storiesofraceandsexin theAndes,forwardbyCatherineR.Stimpson.Chicago:University ofChicagoPress. Yoshino, Kosaku. 1997. Discourse on blood and racial identity in contemporaryJapan.InTheconstructionofracialidentitiesinChina and Japan: Historical and contemporary perspectives, edited by Frank Dikötter,199–211.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai`iPress. ——.1998.Culturalism,racialism,andinternationalisminthediscourse onJapaneseidentity.InMakingmajorities:Constitutingthenationin
272
Michelle Bigenho
Japan,Korea,China,Malaysia,Fiji,Turkey,andtheUnitedStates,edited byDruC.Gladney,13–30.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress. Zorn,Elayne.2005.Frompoliticalprisontotouristvillage:Tourism, gender,indigeneity,andthestateonTaquileIsland,Peru.InNatives makingnation:Gender,indigeneity,andthestateintheAndes,editedby AndrewCanessa,156–180.Tucson:UniversityofArizonaPress.
Part 4 The Boundary Politics of Indigeneity
This page intentionally left blank
t e n
Indian Indigeneities: Adivasi Engagements with Hindu Nationalism in India Amita Baviskar
I
n the late 1990s, sections among Bhilala adivasis, members of a “ScheduledTribe”inwesternIndia,joinedthebattleforHindusupremacy,attackingChristianadivasisand,later,Muslims.Atissuewas indigeneity,thepoliticsofplaceandbelongingintheIndiannation. TheaffiliationwithHindunationalismmarkedaradicaldeparturefrom the previous decade’s politics when adivasis had asserted a separate tribalidentityandsoughttoreclaimrightstoresources.Theseclaims, articulatedwithgreateloquenceduringthecourseofacampaignagainst dam-induceddisplacement,wereshapedandstrengthenedbyglobally circulatingdiscoursesofindigeneityandindigenouspeoples.Howdid thesediscourses,andthedistinctivemeaningsofadivasiindigeneity to which they lent themselves, come to be superseded? Instead of signifyingasubalternexperienceofadivasidispossessionandresistance, howarediscoursesofindigeneitydeployedtosupporttheclaimsofthe politicallydominantHinduRight,disenfranchizingreligiousminorities andlegitimizingapoliticsofhate?HowdoBhilalaadivasisparticipate inthistransformationinthevalencesofindigeneity?Inthischapter,I traceadivasimobilizationacrossthreesites:rightstoplaceandnatural resources, religious reform, and electoral representation, to examine howdiscoursesofindigeneityaredifferentlyconstructedandcontested acrosstheterrainofclass,caste,andcitizenship.
275
276
Amita Baviskar
FootsoldiersforLordRam In March 2002, I was walking along the dirt track from Kakrana to Kulvat,tocatchtheearlymorningbusthatwouldtakemetoAlirajpur, thesubdistrictheadquartersofdistrictJhabua.Kakranaisasprawling villageonthebankoftheNarmadariverincentralIndiainthestate ofMadhyaPradesh(MP);thelocalgeographyofhillsthatmarchalong theriver’sflowmakeitastagingpostonthelonghiketoandfrom othervillagersalongtheriverbanks.Outsidersconsiderthesevillages “remote,”inaccessibleexceptonfoot,nestledinthefastnessesofforested hills.TheBhilalaandBhiladivasiswholiveherehavelongbeenviewed bytherestoftheworldas“backward.”1Thevalencesofthattermextend beyondthematerialpovertyofmostadivasisherewhoekeoutaliving fromfarmingtinyplotsoflandandcollectingforestproduce,forms oflivelihoodthatbarelyseethemthroughtheyear.“Backwardness” is more general attribute—the failure to conform to the “civilized” standardssetbynonadivasisinmattersofdressanddeportment,and lifestyle and aspirations.2 The difference is also marked in terms of adivasireligiousbeliefsandpracticesthatarecenteredontheworship ofancestralspiritsandgodspersonifyingnature.Iwasreturningfrom onesuchreligiousceremony—indal,celebratingtheunionoftheearth andrainthatbringsforthgrain.Indalisacomplexofritesperformedby afamily,elaboratedoveradayandnight,inwhichthesingingofthe Bhilalamythofcreationinducesspiritpossession.Goatsandchickens aresacrificedtothegodsandeveryonefeastsandgetsdrunk.3What nonadivasisnoticethemostaboutindalisitsexcess—thewildnessof possession,sacrifice,dancinganddrunkenness,qualitiesthatcontrast withthemoreausterespiritofupper-casteHinduritualsandfestivities. Therehavebeenstrenuousattemptsto“reform”adivasisbyinculcating inthemmoreupper-castemodesofreligiousvirtue,butthevillages alongtheriverhadbeenlargelyuntouchedbysuchcampaigns. OrsoIthought.Iwaswalkingalone,savoringthebrightmorning andthesoundsandsmellsoftheBhilalacountryside,feelingapleasant lassitude after a convivial night with friends. As I paused at the top of a small rise where the ridge marked the boundary between two villages,aspotwhereasmallcementplatformencircledaboor(Zizyphus jujuba) tree under which offerings of shredded tobacco marked past journeysandpassages,Isawfourfiguresinthedistance,theirrapid stridesswallowingupthegapbetweenus.Ilingeredtoletthemcatch up with me, looking for some company on the rest of the way to Kulvat.Butastheydrewnearer,andIsawwhattheywerewearing,a
IndianIndigeneities:AdivasiEngagementswithHinduNationalisminIndia 277
greatuneaseovertookme.Theywereyoungmen,intheirlateteensor earlytwenties,andadivasi,judgingbytheirfeaturesandthetattoos at the corner of their eyes. They were dressed in white shirts and khakishorts,genericboyscoutsorschooluniforms,exceptthatthey wore black caps on their heads. The attire signified that they were membersoftheRashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh([RSS]NationalVolunteer Union),4theHindunationalistorganizationknownforitshate-based politics,admiredand/orfearedforitsvastnetworkofdisciplinedcadres committedtothecauseofHindusupremacy.Theconfidentpresence oftheseRSSyouthinthisplace,inuniformandmarchinginstep,was anassertionofthestridesthatHindufundamentalismhadmadein theadivasiheartland. Just50kilometersawaylaytheadjacentstateofGujaratwhere,atthat verymoment,shopsandhousesownedbyMuslimsstillsmoldered.They hadbeenlootedandburntbymobsouttoavengeanallegedattackona traincarryingHindutvaactiviststhroughthestate.TheBharatiyaJanata Party([BJP]IndianPeople’sParty)governmentinthestateensuredthat theciviladministrationandpoliceremainedpassivespectatorsofthe violence;inplacesevenovertlyencouragingit(Varadarajan2003).Over themonthofMarch,about2,000MuslimshadbeenkilledinGujarat, womenrapedandmutilated;severalthousandsmoreweredrivenout anddisplacedbythedestructionoftheirhomesandworkplaces.There weretwonovelfeaturesthatmadethesecommunalriotsadeparture frompreviousincidents:one,violencewasnotconfinedtourbanareas butalsooccurredinthecountryside;andtwo,adivasisparticipatedin theattacksagainstMuslims.Muslimtraders,whosefamilieshadbeen settledforgenerationsinthevillagesandsmalltownsacrosstheregion, hadtorunfortheirliveswhenadivasiswieldingswordsandsickles, shouting Hindu slogans, stormed into their houses. Reflecting with satisfaction on their success, an adivasi man remarked, “Ame shakti batavi”(“weshowedourstrength”)(Lobo2002:4845).Adivasishad convertedtotheHindutvacausewithdeadlyeffect. TheviolenceinGujarathadbeencontainedatthestateborder.MP statewasruledbyaCongressPartygovernmentthattookstrongmeasures to defuse communal tensions instigated by the Sangh Parivar. Thepolicewasdeployedonanunprecedentedscaleinbordertowns likeAlirajpur.Districtofficialsheldmeetingswithcommunityleaders. “Badcharacters”weretakenintopreventivecustody.Largegatherings wereprohibited.Butforthismobilization,MuslimsinMPwouldhave suffered the same fate as members of their religious community in Gujarat.Inthiscontext,thesightofadivasimenflauntingtheirRSS
278
Amita Baviskar
affiliationastheywalkedalongavillagepathwasanominousreminder thatacommunalconflagrationhadjustbarelybeenavertedinMP.In thismoment,adivasiengagementswithHinduism,centuriesofcomplex andcontentiouscollectivenegotiations,seemedtohavebeenreduced tothechillinglyfamiliarbinariesofhatepolitics—adivasisconscripted intoamonolithicHinduismconfrontingtheMuslimOther.
Adivasis The use of the term adivasi (lit., “original dwellers”) or “indigenous people” for the groups classified under the Indian Constitution as “ScheduledTribes”inIndiahasnowbecomecommonplace.Despite itspassageintoeverydayusage,scholarshavevoicedtheirmisgivings abouttheapplicabilityoftermssuchas“tribe”and“indigenouspeople” intheIndiancontext(Beteille1986,1998).AndreBeteillepointstothe theoreticalandpracticaldifficultiesofdistinguishingadivasisfromthe castes around them, given their long histories of cultural exchange. Nandini Sundar (1997) and Ajay Skaria (1999) have elaborated this theme in their ethnographies and histories. Other scholars such as G. S. Ghurye have pointed to the colonial provenance of the term anditsoriginsintheimperativesofimperialistpolitics(Ghurye1963). Sumit Guha (1999) traces the connections between anthropological understandingsof“tribes”andthestructuresofcolonialpower.Guha alsoshowshowracialanthropometry,a“science”pursuedbycolonial administratorslikeH.H.RisleyandenthusiasticallyseizedbyuppercasteIndians,fusedideasofracewithcasteandtribe.Thenotionof sharedIndo-AryanoriginswereusedbyIndianelitestoassertparitywith Europeanswhilealsoemphasizingtheirdistancefromlowercasteand tribal“aborigines,”beneaththeminthesocialhierarchy.5Sundar(1997: esp.ch.6)alsopresentsanuancedaccountofthemultipleideologies andinterestsatworkincolonialandpostcolonialpracticesregarding “tribes.”Thesumofthisscholarlywritingistodeconstructthenotion of“tribe”and“indigenouspeople”intheIndiancontext. And,yet,thetermadivasi(ortribe,orindigenouspeople,oraborigines) isnoteasilydismissed.Althoughscholarshavecontesteditssociological validityanddisputeditsprecisemeaningsandcharacteristicattributes, andnationalistsexposeditsdubiousgenealogy,theaccretionsofpolitical and administrative usage over time have rendered the term a social fact. Various conventions of the International Labour Organization from1957onwardandtheWorkingGrouponIndigenousPopulations setupbytheUnitedNationshavesoughttoprotecttheinterestsof
IndianIndigeneities:AdivasiEngagementswithHinduNationalisminIndia 279
“indigenousandothertribalandsemi-tribalpopulations”(Xaxa1999: 3590).Asasignatory,theIndiangovernmentisboundbyseveralof theseconventions.TherightsofadivasisareprotectedundertheFifth andSixthSchedulesoftheIndianConstitutionthatdesignateadivasipopulatedpartsofthecountryassubjecttospeciallawsandprocedures.6 These rights have recently been added to under the Panchayati Raj ActforScheduledAreas(PESA)andmaybefurtheraugmentedbythe proposedScheduledTribesandForestDwellers(RecognitionofForest Rights)Act.7Evenmoreimportant,varioussocialgroups—Bhil,Bhilala, Gond, Santhal, Munda, and hundreds of others whose presence is depictedbyclustersofinkspotsdottedacrossthedemographicmap ofIndia—usethetermadivasitodefinethemselvesasacollectivityand tostakeclaimtomaterialandsymbolicresources.Thecombinedweight ofinternationalandnationallaw,administrativepractice,similarhistories,andpoliticalinternalizationbythepeoplethusdesignated,has impartedtothetermalegitimacythatishardtoignore.Oncecreated, theconceptof“adivasi”hastakenonalifeofitsown,animatedbythe complexsocialpracticesthathaveaccruedaroundit.Ithasbecome apartofreceivedwisdom,internalizedandactedon.Torespectthe politicalweightoftheconceptisnottosubscribetotheimplicitnotion ofessentialdifferencethatitinvokes,buttorecognizethepowerof thisregimeofrepresentation. Arethosegroupswhoaredesignatedasadivasis,andwhoidentify themselves as adivasis, characterized by any “objective” markers of subordinatestatusandsocialdeprivation?Intermsofeconomicand political indicators, it is easy to make the general case that adivasis in peninsular India lag behind the average Indian with respect to basichumandevelopmentindicatorssuchasincome,literacy,lifeexpectancy, infant mortality, and the like.8 The poverty of adivasis is generallylinkedtoalackofaccesstoproductiveresources,whether land based or industrial–urban. Poverty is combined with political powerlessness that constrains their ability to bargain for secure and remunerativelivelihoods.Moreandmoreadivasistodaymakeupthe gangs of seasonal laborers migrating in search of wage employment tourbancentersandareasofintensiveagriculture.Thefailureofthe welfarestatetosubstantiallyimprovethelivesofadivasisisevidentin theirimpoverishedeverydaylives.Deprivationisnotanaturalstate foradivasis;itisproducedandreproducedbythepoliciesandpractices thatcharacterizeIndia’spostcolonialdevelopment.Thelandscapethat adivasisinhabithasbeentheinternalfrontierforanexpandingIndian economy—asourceofmineralsandtimber,asiteformines,damsand
280
Amita Baviskar
heavyindustries,andtheyhaveexperiencedtheresultanterosionof theiragricultureandforest-basedeconomy. Economicandpoliticalsubordinationisbuttressedbytheideologyof castepollutionandpurity.Unconvertedadivasisfacethesocialstigmaof beingconsidered“savage”and“backward”bydominantgroupssuchas casteHindusaswellasbyMuslimsandChristians.Thisstigmafacilitates thebrutal,oftensadistic,treatmentmetedouttoadivasisbydominant groups(Baviskar2001).Tociteoneubiquitousinstance:pooradivasis inwesternIndiaareactivelydiscouragedfromsittinginthefrontofthe busiftherearecasteHindustraveling.Adivasiwomenaretypifiedas “promiscuous,”makingthemfairgameforsexualharassment.Tobean adivasiinwesternIndiaistobeatthebottomofthesocialhierarchy. However, the stark social differences in public dealings between adivasisandbazaarias(townspeople,upper-casteHindusandMuslims) arenowlesswell-definedforasectionofadivasis.Educatedingovernmentschools,fluentinHindi,dressedinshirtsandtrousersinstead ofloinclothsandturbans,9partoftheyoungergenerationofadivasis is more confident in bazaaria culture. Although some of those who makeittoschoolcomefrombetter-offfamilies,thisisnotalwaysthe case.Sometimes,menwithlargefamilieswilldecidetosendoneson (less frequently, a daughter) to school, to open up the possibility of employmentofftheland.Astheytravelinbusestotheschoolslocated in local towns, hang out at tea shops and cigarette and paan (betel leaf)kiosks,playcaromforhourstogetheratthetowncenter,adivasi youngmenpartakeofabazaariamodernitythatiscool,butthatrarely translatesintohighersocialstatusbeyondmoreegalitariantreatmentin everydayencounters.Therearefewgovernmentjobsforthisburgeoning numberofformallyeducatedmen;mostlacktheconnectionsorthe academic qualifications to be competitive. The bazaaria lifestyle is costly to maintain and the desire for urban comforts is unending.10 Whileyoungmenscroungearoundforwork—drivingjeeps,pettytrade, brokerage, strenuously avoiding manual, agricultural labor, they are oftensubsidizedbythefamilythatstilllivesontheland.Forthosein thevillage,theurbanconnectionmadepossiblebythe“white-collar” childisasourceofpride,apotentialconduitintoaworldwherethey areregardedwithcontempt.Itisanassettohaveatown-basedkinsman alongasavaataad(spokesperson)whennegotiatingtheunfamiliarand intimidatingterrainofthebureaucracyatthehealthclinicortheBlock developmentoffice. Therearesignificantdifferencesamongadivasisinruralareastoo. Bhil,Bhilala,andTadvihilladivasisarenotahomogenousgroupbut
IndianIndigeneities:AdivasiEngagementswithHinduNationalisminIndia 281
maintain a strict social distance especially with respect to marriage andfood-relatedsociality.Inareaswheretheycoexist,Bhilalastend tohavegreatereconomicandpoliticalresourcesthanthesubordinate Bhils.BhilalaswillnotacceptwaterfromBhilswhotheyderogatorily callpadkhadya(“eatersofbeef”).Inturn,thecircumstancesofthese adivasisarequitedifferentfromthoseofpowerfuladivasigroupssuch astheChaudhrisinGujarat(Shah1985)andtheMeenasinRajasthan, allpartofacontiguousadivasilandscape.
Adivasis,Indigeneity,andtheHinduNation Agreaterfluencyinbazaariacultureamongsomeadivasiscoincides with this moment of Hinduization. The articulation between an urban, commercial culture dominated by upper-caste Hindus and the culture of political Hinduism needs to be situated within an olderdiscourseofindigeneityinIndia.Sinceitsinception,theSangh Parivar (the family of Hindu fundamentalist organizations) has claimedindigenousstatusforallHindusandonlyHindus.Ideologues ofHindutva(theprincipleofHindusupremacy)ferventlysubscribe totheideaofHindusasindigenouspeople,historicallymarginalized byMusliminvadersandrulers.11TwohundredyearsofBritishrule, andthepromotionofChristianityduringcolonialism,alsoarousethe samesenseofgrievance,albeittoalesserdegree.FromtheHindutva perspective,HinduismistheonlyoriginalreligionoftheIndiansubcontinent;allothersareforeignandcorrupt.AccordingtoGolwalkar, thefounderoftheRSS,onlyforHindusdotheboundariesofthe Nation(rashtrabhoomi)coincidewiththeMotherland(matribhoomi) andSacredLand(punyabhoomi);MuslimslooktoMeccaandChristians totheVatican[sic],whileBuddhistsandSikhsareconsideredtobe lapsedHindusand,thus,notaproblem.Theseprimordialloyalties determine patriotism and the politics of belonging. In claiming “indigeneity”exclusivelyforHindus,theSanghParivarerasescenturies ofMuslimpresenceinthesubcontinent,aswellasthediscomfiting historicalfactthattheAryanswhohigh-casteHindusclaimastheir forebears were also of foreign origin.12 Fascism, nationalism and religiosity combine in Hindutva ideology, the criteria of imputed originsandpuritydeterminingpatternsofinclusionandexclusion. TheinsideandoutsideoftheIndiannationisneatlyconflatedwith religiousidentity,suchthatreligiousaffiliationbecomestheprimary criterionforrecognitionaslegitimatecitizens.TobefullyIndianand indigenousistobeHindu.
282
Amita Baviskar
AlthoughMuslimsandChristianshaveconstitutedthehatedOther integraltotheSanghParivar’sidentitysinceitsformation,thequestion of adivasi affiliation has only been intermittently in focus over the years,comingintoprominencewhentherehavebeenreportsofadivasis convertingtoChristianity(Xaxa2000).Hindufundamentalistshave generallyassumedthatadivasisaredefaultHindus.Theyaresupported bytheIndianstate’sclassificationofScheduledTribesasHindus,unless explicitly claimed otherwise.13 However, state classificatory schemes arealsopoliticalinterventions:inthecolonialperiod,thereligionof theScheduledTribeswasrecordedas“animist,”todistinguishthem frompeasantcasteswhowereHindus.AfterIndependence,nationalist anthropologistsarguedagainstattributingadistinctivereligiousidentity totheadivasis,claimingthattheywere“backwardHindus”(Ghurye 1963). According to this view, differentiating “tribes” from “castes,” and claiming an “aboriginal” status for adivasis was a mischievous move,reminiscentofthecolonialpolicyofdivideandrule.Theunity of Independent India demanded adivasi integration, not difference. Andyetthecategory“ScheduledTribes”wasnotdissolvedaltogether; itwaspreserved,althoughwithadivasisclassifiedasHindus. Thecontemporaryculturalpoliticsofbeingadivasiiscontentious innovelways,withreligiousidentitytakingonanentirelynewsignificance,inoppositiontoMuslimsandChristians.Althoughadivasis intheNarmadavalleyhaveonlyrecentlybeguntonegotiatewithpoliticalHinduism,theirengagementswiththedominantHinduculture prevalentinlocaltownshavealongerhistory.14Inthelastcentury, there have been several waves of Hinduization in the region, when manyadivasifamiliesandhamletshavebecomebhagat(lit.,“devotees”), joiningHindusectsandworshippinggodsfromtheHindupantheon, renouncing adivasi practices, and ostracizing nonbhagat adivasis. A questforsudhaar(improvementorreform)15andupwardmobilityby emulating dominant Hindu values, the bhagat movement has been most influential among adivasis who have closer ties with Hindu townspeople—bazaarias. Adivasis along the Narmada river have kept their distance from Hinduizationthough,inparticularcontexts,theirpracticesdisplaya certainambivalenceinthisregard.16Forinstance,asdamconstruction hasfloodedpartsoftheNarmadavalley,someadivasishavebought motorboats to negotiate a landscape no longer accessible on foot. I founditcuriousthattheboatmen,thesameyouthswhoparticipated wholeheartedly in the rites of indal, singing, dancing and getting possessed,alwaysbegintheirdaybyworshippingtheboattheHindu
IndianIndigeneities:AdivasiEngagementswithHinduNationalisminIndia 283
way—with agarbattis (incense sticks), an item never used in Bhilala rituals.Itremindedmeofhownonadivasibusdriversbegintheirday atthewheel,andperhapsadivasisechoedthatpracticeasanaptway ofpropitiatingtheinternalcombustionengine.Thesyncretismthat markssuchadivasipracticesmakesthemhardtoclassify.Itshouldalso benotedthatthereligiousdifferentiationofadivasisintobhagatand nonbhagat,thosewhoclaimtobeHinduandthosewhodonot,isnot aunilinearhistoricaltrend;thereisevidenceofvillagesrevertingto olderadivasiwaysfromtimetotime.17Hinduization’scurrentwave is manifested in the mushrooming of roadside temples all over the Narmada valley in the 1990s. These tall saffron-painted brick and cement structures, usually dedicated to Hanuman, the monkey god whoassistedRaminhisbattleagainstevil,andbuiltwithdonations fromlocalHindutraders,announcethesharedfaithofadivasisand caste-Hindus. AlthoughtheadivasisoftheNarmadavalleydidnotparticipateinit, otherpartsofJhabuaandpresent-dayRajasthanandGujaratwitnesseda remarkableharnessingofHinduizationforadivasiendsinthe1940s.Led byMamaBaleshwar,theLalTopiAndolanfreedadivasisfromthevethbegaar(forcedlabor)imposedbyprincelyrulersbyappealingtotheArya Samajwhoperformedshuddhi(purification)andupanayan(donningthe sacredthread)ceremonies,convertingadivasisintotwice-bornHindus and,thus,exemptfromcorvee.MamaBaleshwarenlistedtheAryaSamaj tohisaidbytellingtheKanchiShankaracharyathatoppressedadivasis wereconvertingtoChristianitytoescapeveth-begaarsincetheBritish had exempted Christians from forced labor! If the Shankaracharya allowedadivasistowearthesacredthread,conversionstoChristianity wouldcease.TheHinduleaderagreed,ontheconditionthatadivasis becomebhagat,givingupmeatandliquor.Thousandsofadivasisthus donnedthesacredthreadandcircumventedthepoweroftheprincely states (Baviskar 1995a: 79–80). In the early 1990s, Mama Baleshwar recalledthisinitiativeasashrewdploycalculatedtomakethemostof unequallaws,ratherthanasamovetowardgenuineconversion(Amit Bhatnagar, personal communication). One does not know whether adivasis also saw conversion as a purely instrumental step, whether theycontinuedbeingbhagatoreventuallylapsedintomoreadivasi ways—thevariedandcomplexrelationsbetweenahegemonicideology andsubalternconsciousnessarehardtointerpretacrosstime(Guha 1983). Themultiplespiritualandculturalmeaningsembodiedinthepractices ofbeingbhagatnowmatterlessthanitspotentialforrecruitingadivasis
284
Amita Baviskar
topoliticalHinduism.SeveralbhagatsectsareintegratedwiththeSangh Parivar, local units of which also run village schools where adivasi childrenaretutoredinHindunationalism.18Inareaswherestatehealth andeducationfacilitiesarenonexistentorsubstandard,Sangh-affiliated organizationslikeSewaBharti(IndiaService),VanvasiKalyanManch (Forum for the Welfare of Forest dwellers),19 and Friends of Tribals Societyfillthegap.20Philanthropicactivitiesprovideaneasierentry intoadivasivillages,wherebhagatgroupshavebeenmobilizedtoform village-leveldharmarakshasamitis(religionprotectioncommittees).The committeesorganizereligiousdiscoursesandbhajan(devotionalsongs) singingsessions.Theirmembersaresuppliedwithcalendarsadorned withHindudeities,21andareencouragedtocelebrateHindufestivals likeNavratriandGaneshChaturthithatareunfamiliartoadivasis.22 SanghParivarorganizationsassistbhagatsinperformingpilgrimages toimportantHindutemplesinGujarat. Village-level activities are supplemented by larger regional meetings,oftenaddressedbystate-levelandnationalSanghParivarleaders, who exhort adivasis to assert their Hinduness and defend a religion threatenedbymissionariesandMuslims.Ritualsincludegivingdeeksha (religious initiation) by blessing and anointing adivasis, distributing trishuls(tridents,thesymbolofLordShiva),necklaceswithHanumaniconlockets,andbhagwakaapad(saffronclothbandanasandscarves), tothechantingofHinduslogans.Anadivasiactivist,notabhagatand acriticofthe“saffronization”23ofadivasis,whoattendedoneofthese meetingsremarkedontheirresemblancetothesecularsocialmovement eventswithwhichhewasfamiliarfromtheantidamcampaign:thesame calltoaction,theexpressionofcollectiveunityandstrength,therituals ofsolidarity(K.S.Gavle,personalcommunication,October14,2003). Thereisarecursivitytosuchborrowings:SanghParivarmeetingsmimic thoseofprogressivesocialmovements.Thelatter,inturn,drawona politicalrepertoirethatcanbetracedtothenationaliststrugglethat, initsearlydays,tookcelebrationsoffestivalslikeGaneshChaturthi fromthehomeintothestreets,akeyinnovationinfashioningaHindu, anticolonial public sphere and collective identity in urban western India(Courtright1985).Campaignsthatseektoincorporateadivasis intoaHindunarrativeofjagriti(awakening),righteousassertionagainst theencroachmentsofMuslimandChristianforeigninvaders,contain echoeswithinechoesofolderstruggleswithverydifferentmeanings andends. TheturntotheSanghParivarhasanotherpoliticaldimension.This regionofwesternMPhadfordecadesvotedfortheCongressParty,a
IndianIndigeneities:AdivasiEngagementswithHinduNationalisminIndia 285
centrist,secularistformation.24TheCongressParty,withitsimageof paternalism,hadalong-standingholdoveradivasivotesalloverthe state.AlthoughtheentrenchedhierarchyoftheCongressPartyprovided fewopportunitiesforpeoplestrivingtoenterelectoralpolitics,theentry oftheSanghParivarintheregionanditsrapidexpansionofferedan alternative,quickerroutetoapoliticalcareer.TheBJPspoketomore thanoneadivasidesire—thequestforspiritualreformandsocialrespect combinedwithindividualelectoralambitions.Intheelectionstothe stateassemblyin2004,theBJPwonalltheseatsfromJhabuadistrict andwentontoformthegovernmentinMPstate.25 TheseedsofHindutvaintheadivasiheartlandborefruitinthelate 1990s.26In1997–99,Christianadivasiswereattacked,andtheirchurches setonfireinsouthGujaratandMP.Priestswerestrippedandbeaten. Christianadivasiswereforciblyadministeredganga-jal,waterfromthe sacredHinduriverGangesinashuddhikaran(purificatoryrite)toreclaim theirsouls.TheSanghParivareloquentlydubbedthiscampaignghar vaapasi(returninghome),characterizingChristianadivasisasHindus whohadstrayedfromthefold.27ViolenceagainstChristianadivasis eruptedagaininJhabuainJanuary2004whenamissionschool,several churches,andhomesweresetonfire.28Christiansconstitutelessthan 2percentofJhabua’spopulation—accordingtothe1991census,they were14,974inthedistrict’stotalpopulationof1.3million,andthey werenotparticularlywell-offcomparedwithotheradivasis.Localtrade and money-lending is controlled by upper-caste Hindus and Bohra Muslims.ButthearrivalofPentecostalChristianitytothearea,with meetingsthatmatchedtheSanghParivarinflamboyanceifnotinsize, alarmedtheSanghParivar(andtosomeextent,alsotheCatholicchurch thathashadalocalizedpresenceinJhabuasincethe1890s,without manyconversionstakingplace).EpisodicviolenceagainstChristians, andnowMuslims,hasbecomearegularfeatureofculturalpoliticsin westernIndiaoverthelastdecade. Scholarscommittedtothestruggleforadivasirightsseetheparticipationofadivasisintheanti-MuslimriotsinGujaratin2002asa conceptualandpoliticalchallenge.Thestandardexplanationseeksto denytheagencyofadivasis,claimingthattheywereincitedbyoutsiders. According to Lobo: “In the tribal areas, ... there has been a history of economic exploitation between Bohra Muslim traders and tribal people.ThishasbeenexploitedbytheHindutvabrigade,whogaveit acommunalcolor.Inmanyplacestribalpeoplehadbeeninstigatedto loot.TheBhilpeopleinthisareaareextremelypoor.Thisdistricthas suffereddroughtconditions.ThepoliticiansandHindutva-vadiswith
286
Amita Baviskar
thecomplicityofgovernmentbureaucracycarriedouttheentireoperation ofusingadivasistolootandarson”(Lobo2002:4846–4847,emphasis mine).Anothertribalrightsactivistandscholarcommentedthat“tribals aresociallyvulnerableandwhiletheywouldnotbebotheredmuch byHinduismandIslam,liquorwouldplayaroleinincitingthemto violence” (Devy 2002: 40). These explanations represent adivasis as structuraldupes:theireconomicexploitationandpovertyallowthem tobecynicallymanipulatedbytheSanghParivartotargetMuslims. Asa“sociallyvulnerable”group,adivasisdonothavetheluxuryof indulginginreligiouspursuits,ofengaginginprojectsofspiritualreform andsocialsuccess.Butgivethemadrink,andtheyreverttoastateof savagery.
TheAdivasiStruggleforIndigenousRights Accordingtotribalrightsactivists,adivasiparticipationinanti-Muslim andanti-Christianviolenceisatragicaberrationfromtherealhistorical classstruggleforrightstoresources.Thattherearemanyroutestotribal power,includingthepathofaffiliatingwithHindusupremacists,isa politicalpossibilitythatishardtoaccept.Adivasiviolenceisattributedto falseconsciousness.“Theproblemsofadivasisarerelatedtojal(water), jungle (forests) and jameen (land). The transfer of their resources to nontribalareasisthequestion.Religionisnottheirproblem.Insteadof addressingissuesofpoliticaleconomytheSanghParivarandtheBJP whosesocialbaseisamonguppercastesandmiddleclassesdivertthe attentionofadivasistomisguidedtargetslikeMuslimsandChristians” (Lobo2002:4849,emphasismine). Thepossibilityofaunitedadivasistruggleforrightstonaturalresources and political power in western India seems far-fetched now. Butin1990,whenIfirstbeganfieldworkinthearea,adivasisinthe RSSuniformwouldhavebeenanincongruous,evenimpossible,sight. Atthattime,theBhilandBhilalavillagesalongtheriverwereactive intheNarmadaBachaoAndolan(SavetheNarmadaCampaign),strugglingagainstdisplacementbytheSardarSarovardam.Intheprevious decade, they had mobilized through the Khedut Mazdoor Chetna Sangath(PeasantsandWorkers’ConsciousnessUnion)tosecureaccess to forest land and to government services.29 The Andolan and the Sangathtogetherdefinedadivasiidentityasinformedbyahistoryof dispossession,withtheirdistinctiveculturalpracticesbeleagueredby secularandHindumodernity.Adivasiclaimstolandandforests,and theiroppositiontodisplacement,werelegitimizedintermsofclassand
IndianIndigeneities:AdivasiEngagementswithHinduNationalisminIndia 287
citizenship,astherightofasubordinatepeopleto,attheveryleast, notsufferfurtherdeprivation.Butalsowovenintotheseclaimswere ideasofecologicalvirtue—that,asautochthons,adivasiswerebetter stewardsofthelandthanthegovernmentwhodisplacedtheminthe nameof“nationaldevelopment.” Manyofthereasonsthatmadeacompellingcaseforadivasisasa categoryofsociallyoppressedpeoplearecharacteristicssharedbymost members of the Scheduled Castes or dalits.30 If anything, atrocities againstdalitsaremuchmoreviolent,thelinesofsocialdistancemuch moreentrenched(Shahetal.2006).Ifsubordinationisthecriterion, thesameclaimsandentitlementsshouldbeapplicableinthecaseof both dalits and adivasis. But there is one crucial difference between adivasisanddalits:mostadivasiscontinuetohavesomeaccesstoland, whereas dalits, as former service castes engaged in “polluting” tasks likesweeping,scavenging,leatherwork,cremation,andprostitution, donot.Thelinktoland,especiallytoforestedlands,31givesadivasisa certainculturalcachetthatlandlessdalitscannotclaim.Adivasiclaims tosocialjusticearemadenotonlyonthebasisofasharedexperienceof oppressionbutalsowithreferencetoaspecialculture.Indigenousrights activistsfrequentlyrepresentadivasisasdistinguishedbyasetofunique values,institutions,andpracticesthatsetthemapartfromothergroups. Thereisastrongspatialdimensiontotheframingofindigenousculture. Mostoften,thesenormsandpracticespertaintoadivasirelationships with the physical environment that they inhabit, relationships that aredescribedasecologicallywise;buttheyarealsotypifiedashaving relatively egalitarian social structures with aspirations and lifestyles thatdistinguishthemfromothers.Unlikeothergroups,adivasisare regarded as nonmaterialistic, they respect nature’s limits, and their economiesaresupposedtobebasedonreciprocityandsubsistence,not competitionandaccumulation.Theseculturaldifferencesareperceived tobefragileandprecious.Notonlymustadivasishavearighttotheir culturebecauseitistheirownbutalsobecauseitisathingofbeauty.32 Suchaclaimforculturalrightsisrarelymadeinthecaseofdalits. Theculturalrightsargumentwasapowerfulresourceformobilization inthe1980sandearly1990s,whenitwasfrequentlyusedbyadivasis themselves to claim that their culture was organically linked to a particularecology.InthewordsofKhajan,akeyadivasispokesmanin theantidamcampaign, Godmadetheearthandtheforest;thenHemadeus,adivasis,tolive upon the earth. Ever since we have come out of our mother’s womb,
288
Amita Baviskar
wehavelivedhere.Generationupongenerationofourancestorslived anddiedhere.Wearebornoftheearthandwebringforthgrainfrom it.Governmentsliveincitiesandliveonourgrain.Weliveintheforest and we keep it alive. Governments and politicians come and go but we have never changed; we have been here from the beginning. The governmentcannotcreatetheearthortheforest;thenhowcanittake itawayfromus?33
Asserting an indigenous identity by naturalizing the connection betweenadivasisandtheirenvironmentwasapowerfulwayofclaiming sovereign rights to natural resources. Khajan highlights the ties betweenbloodandsoil—thisisourancestralland.Atthesametime,he distinguishesbetweenthosewhoproduceandthosewhoconsume—the legitimacyofadivasisagainsttheillegitimacyofthestate’sclaims.To quoteRaymondWilliamsfromanothercontext:“Wehavemixedour laborwiththeearth,ourforceswithitsforcestoodeeplytobeableto drawbackandseparateeitherout”(1980:83).Thelandscapeofthe Narmadavalleyisproducedbyadivasiculturalwork,cultivatingcrops aswellascosmologies,not“undercircumstanceschosenbythemselves, butundercircumstancesdirectlyencountered,givenandtransmitted fromthepast”(Marx1963[1852]:15). TheculturalrightsclaimedbyBhilalaadivasiswhenthreatenedby displacement resonated with audiences across the world, garnering significantmetropolitansupportfortheantidammovementinIndiaand abroad.Othercampaignsofadivasisresistingdisplacementelsewhere inIndiawerealsoinspiredbytheNarmadastruggleandstrengthened in their staking of similar claims.34 These claims were received less sympatheticallybytheIndiangovernment,bythestateofGujarat(the primebeneficiaryfromthedam),andthemajorityofnewspaper-reading Indiansforwhomtherewasnothingintheadivasipredicamentthat a good rehabilitation package would not solve. The dominant view hasbeenthat,asapoor,backwardgroup,adivasisshouldbecontent withwhattheyweregetting;afterall,thegovernmentwasdoingalot forthem,andthedamwasneededfornationaldevelopment.35Dam supportersreceivedajoltwhentheMorseCommissionconductedan IndependentReviewoftheSardarSarovardamandadvisedtheWorld Bank to withdraw its funding from the project on the grounds that it harmed tribal cultures (Morse and Berger 1992). The commission heldthebankaccountabletoitsownguidelinesandtointernational conventionsontherightsofindigenouspeoples.Notably,thisdiscourse ofindigenousrightsdefinedadivasisasglobalsubjects,kintoaborigines
IndianIndigeneities:AdivasiEngagementswithHinduNationalisminIndia 289
in Australia and indigenous peoples in the Americas, oppressed by thejurisdictionofthenation-state,andnotasnationalcitizens(also seeIWGIA1995:33).Thecommission’sreport,whichultimatelyled tothecancellationoftheWorldBankloan,outragednotonlythose whosupportedtheprojectbutmanysocialscientistsaswell(Baviskar 1995b).Theychargedthatthereport’sconclusionthatadivasiswere autochthonswaswrong;itdisregardedthespecificitiesoftheIndiancase. Asa(Brahmin)newspapercolumnistdeclared,“Wearealladivasis.”
EssentialismsandExclusions Itiseasytodemolishtheadivasiclaimtoindigeneityin“objective” terms.Indigeneityisahybriddiscourseproducedthroughtransnational alliances (Conklin and Graham 1995). Anthropologists and NGOs, international law and conventions, have helped to create an ideal typecobbledtogetherfromaroundtheworld,combiningnotionsof adivasi-as-victimwithadivasi-as-exoticOther.Representationsofthe loinclothwearingadivasi,playingafluteordancing,circulatemore thanthoseofhismoreprosaictrousers-cladcousin.36Suchcoverage alsotendstoreinforceessentialistimagesofadivasisas“ecologically noblesavages”(orincreasingly,notsavagesatall,butsavants[Redford 1991]),conflatingnatureandculture.37Theearlierpejorativequalityof beingfarfromCivilizationisnowglossedpositivelyasbeingcloseto Nature.Claimstothephysicalenvironmentarelegitimatedbyreference toprimordialconnectionsofdubioushistoricity.RamachandraGuha has criticized such essentialist representations as merely a form of “invertedOrientalism,”positivelyvalorizingamythicalOthercreated byWesternenvironmentalists(Guha1989).Thepervasivepresenceof suchimagespointstothehegemonyofWesternformsofknowledge, especiallyclassificatorypractices.AkhilGuptapointsouttheironythat “the effectiveness of ‘indigenous’ identity depends on its recognition by hegemonic discourses of imperialist nostalgia, where poor and marginalpeopleareromanticizedatthesametimethattheirwayof lifeisdestroyed”(Gupta1998:18).However,GuptaandPeterBrosius havesubsequentlyarguedthatsuchessentialistrepresentationsmay becondonedasastrategicnecessity(Brosius1999:280;Gupta1998: 19).Whenadivasisaretrappedindichotomiesnotoftheirmaking, inaworldwheremarginalgroupshavefewpoliticalresourcesattheir command, the assertion of rights within an unequal political space compels recourse to creative strategies that are often compromised (Tsing1999).
290
Amita Baviskar
ThisisalsothecasewiththeantidammovementintheNarmadavalley, whereadivasisself-consciously(andsometimes,withirony)perform stereotypedroles,panderingtohegemonicculturalexpectationstogain theirownends,usuallywithsomepromptingfrombackstagenonadivasi activists(Baviskar1995a:213;1997b:59–60).Idonotwishtosuggest thatsuchrepresentationsare“cynical,opportunistic,inauthentic,”or thattheyareployschosenbygoal-orientedactors,orthattheyareaform offalseconsciousness.ToquoteTaniaLi,“agroup’sself-identificationas tribalorindigenousisnotnaturalorinevitable,butneitherisitsimply invented,adopted,orimposed.Itisrather,apositioningwhichdraws uponhistoricallysedimentedpractices,landscapesandrepertoiresof meaning,andemergesthroughparticularpatternsofengagementand struggle”(Li2000:150). Thispositioningofadivasisintheantidammovementsufferedamajor blowinSeptember2000whentheSupremeCourtofIndiaruledthatthe projectshouldbebuiltbecause“damsaregoodforthenation.”38Adivasi claims about cultural rights to a unique place, the Narmada valley, weredismissed,pavingthewayfortheirdisplacement.Attheregional level, too, the bid to form a separate adivasi state faded away. This wasthedemiseofaninitiativeintheearly1990sthatsoughttounite all adivasis—Bhil, Bhilala, Tadvi, and Chaudhri, under the common rubricofBhilkhand,carvingoutanautonomousterritoryforadivasis in western India along the lines of Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh in east–centralIndia.39Atthesametime,theSanghParivarwasexpanding itspresenceinthearea,offeringtoincorporateadivasisintoadifferent community—notanoppositionalidentitythatstresseddistinction,but theopportunitytobepartofthehegemonicHindumajority,notto challengestructuresofpowerbuttoparticipateinthem.Adivasiscould now imagine themselves as part of a larger cultural landscape—the Hindu nation, rather than as a subaltern presence incarcerated in a stateofnature. Onmostcounts,theclaimstoindigeneitymadebytheHinduRightare starklydifferentfromtheclaimstoindigeneitymadebyadivasisfighting against displacement by a large dam. Hindu indigeneity legitimizes theviolentexclusionandsubordinationofreligiousminorities.Adivasi indigeneityisademandforinclusionintheIndianpolity,aclaimon resourcesunjustlydeniedandalienated.Thisdifferenceisasubstantive oneandseparatesasetoffascistorganizationsfromprogressiveadivasi politicalorganizationsandsocialmovementsinMP.Yetthereisone disturbingcommonelementinthesewidelydivergentinvocationsof indigeneity.Theadivasiclaimismadelessonthebasisoftheprinciple
IndianIndigeneities:AdivasiEngagementswithHinduNationalisminIndia 291
ofcitizenship—therightsguaranteedtoallIndiansundertheIndian Constitution,andmoreonthebasisofadifferentculture,tiedtonature inaparticularplace.AsIdiscussbelow,thisdiscursiveemphasiscreates itsownexclusions. Althoughindigeneity,likeallessentialistidentities,isapowerful, culturally resonant weapon for political mobilization and one that adivasis are well-positioned to deploy, the language of citizenship rightssubmergesadivasidifferenceintoamoregeneralizedsubaltern subjectposition.Politicalgroupsworkingonresourcerightsissuesin theNarmadavalleywhoarecommittedtotheadivasicausewithinthe termsoftheIndianConstitutionandbeyondit,havesoughttoresolve thistensionideologicallyandorganizationally.Sangathactivistsargued thatadivasiswerepartofalargerdalitcommunityofoppressedpeople everywhere (Shankar Tadavla, personal communication, March 15, 1994).TheearlyAndolanprotestswerejoinedbytheChhattisgarh MuktiMorcha,cadresofindustriallaborersfightingforfairemployment makingcommoncausewithpeasantsresistingdisplacement.Atthe timeofwriting,politicalgroupsinMPworkingontheissueofforestdwellers’ rights under the umbrella of Jan Sangharsh Morcha have takenastandopposingtheadivasi–nonadivasidistinctionmadeby thedraftforestbill.40Suchstrategicalliancesandideologicalstands provethatsolidaritiescanbeestablishedacrossculturaldifferenceto forgeamoreinclusiveoppositionalpolitics.Yetthewarofattrition wagedbythestateagainsttheantidammovementtookitstoll.Those who could stay longer in the movement were those who had land atstake. The assertion of cultural ties to land, and the ability to mobilize onthatbasis,leavesoutthemostvulnerablegroup—thelandless.In theNarmadavalleylivedDhankavaNaiks,adalitgroupthathadno landbutonlylegendsabouthow,manygenerationsago,theadivasis conqueredthemandcapturedtheirforests.Lackingtheculturalcapital thatadivasiscoulddrawon,ignoredbyanantidammovementthat focusedontherightsoflandedadivasisandHindupeasantstostress theimpossibilityofrehabilitation,theNaikswerethefirsttotakethe meagercompensationofferedbythegovernmentandfadeawayinto thedistance.Theirunwittingexclusionisatinystrandintheantidam saga, an epic struggle that overcame enormous odds to transform conceptionsofbigdamsanddisplacementacrosstheworld,butitis nottrivial.Suchexclusionsremindusofthedarkersideofthepolitics ofindigeneityandtheneedtoconstantlykeepalivethepossibilityof alliancesacrossidentities.
292
Amita Baviskar
When political vocabularies increasingly resort to the “sedentarist metaphysics”(Malkki1992)ofindigeneity,wherecollectiveidentities are“naturally”tetheredtoplace,theyhaveotherunintendedconsequencestoo.Themajorityoftheworld’spoor,ruralandurban,liveonthe marginsofsubsistenceandthemostdegradedecologicalconditions butcannotclaimtobeindigenous.Forinstance,recentmigrantsto Indian cities can establish no authentic genealogies; their resource claimsarethemosttenuous.Theculturalpoliticsoffixingpeoplein placeleavespoormigrantsvulnerabletophysicalevictionasauthorities declarethattheyshould“gobacktowheretheybelong.”41Movements foradivasihomelandsthatmobilizearoundtheissueofcolonization andexploitationby“outsiders”runasimilarriskofturningagainst migrants, especially religious minorities. Ironically, some of these migrantsarelikelytobeadivasisdispossessedbystateprojectsinthe nameofthenation,thepoliticsofbelongingrenderingthem“people outofplace.”
Conclusion This chapter analyzes one episode in an ongoing series of struggles aroundindigeneityinIndia.Theparticularconjunctureofclassand caste,religion,andcitizenshipthatitdescribesissituatedinaregionally limitedspaceandtime.InwesternIndia,overthelast15years,the routestoadivasipowerhavecometocoincidewithexpandingHindu nationalisminapotentmixofreligiousfaith,culturalaspirations,and electoralopportunity.AdivasisinotherpartsofIndiahaveparticipated inandcreatedotherkindsofculturalpolitics,fromformingpolitical partiesbasedonadivasiidentitytojoiningNaxaliterevolutionarygroups. Thischapterdoesnotclaimtorepresenttheseandotherstrugglesthat inhabitdifferentcontextsandyetaresimilarinthattheyalladdressthe predicamentandpromiseofbeingadivasi.Iofferanecessarilypartial account,butonethatIhopewillactasaprovocation. TherehasbeenagenerationalshiftinthelifeoftheIndiannation-state. Nationaldevelopmentalismhasbeenerodedbyeconomicliberalization; secular-liberalideologiesarethreatenedbytheilliberalismofreligious andmarket-fundamentalisms(Deshpande1997;Hansen1999;Ludden 1996;McMichael1996).42AdivasisinwesternIndiahaveexperienceda generationalshifttoo.Thechildrenofthosewhostruggledagainstthe dam,forrightstotheforest,seekotherpoliticalfutures.Astheyinhabit worldsdifferentfromtheirparents’,youngeradivasislearn,rebel,and
IndianIndigeneities:AdivasiEngagementswithHinduNationalisminIndia 293
moveon.Thischapterilluminatesoneconjunctureinthelifeofanation andinthelivesofagroupofadivasisand,indiscussingit,challenges anarticleoffaithformanyofusthatindigenousactionwillsurelylead tofreedomandtoabetterworld.Themomentthischapterdelineates maywellbringsocialsuccessandgreaterpowertosomeadivasiswho embrace Hinduism. But this is happening at the expense of others, includingChristianadivasisandthosewhocontinuetopracticethe religiousformsuniquetoBhilandBhilalas.Thischapteralsorecords theeclipseofmobilizationaroundresourcerightswhenadivasiactivists, evenastheyassertedentitlementsbasedonautochthonoustiestoland, werewillingtoallywithothergroupsaroundquestionsofdisplacement. Perhapsthisisatemporaryphaseandtheagrarianquestionwillcometo theforeonceagainasthedebatearoundforest-dwellers’rightsrevives.43 Yet,howevertransient,thismomentshowsthatwecannotassumethat indigeneityisintrinsicallyasignofsubalternityoramodeofresistance. Whoadivasisare,andwhattheybecome,arequestionsthatcallfor continuedengagementandapoliticsofcriticalsolidarity.
Notes Acknowledgements. I would like to thank the organizers, Orin Starn, Marisol delaCadena,andalltheothersparticipantsattheWenner-Grenconference fortheirinsightsandencouragement.IamalsogratefultoRamReddy,Mihir Shah, Rahul N. Ram, and an anonymous reviewer, for their careful reading andincisivecomments. 1. Adivasi is the Indian term for social groups designated as “Scheduled Tribes” in the Indian Constitution. I discuss below the contentious social historyofthisdesignation,andthedifficultiesofseparatingtribesfromcastes inIndiancontexts. 2. ManygovernmentandNGOprogramsseektoeducateadivasistohelp thememergeoutoftheir“backward”stateintothesunshineofdevelopment. Somescholarsevenseebeingdisplacedbyadamasanunexpectedblessing for adivasis, because it will hasten their movement into the “mainstream” (Joshi 1991). Adivasis are perceived as anachronistic inhabitants of spaces outsidemodernity. 3. SeeBaviskar(1995a:162–4)forafulleranalysisofindal.
294
Amita Baviskar
4. The RSS is a grassroots organization of Hindu supremacists, seeking to replace India’s secular polity based on the principle of religious coexistence (“unity with diversity”) with the ideology of Hindutva—Hindu domination andthesubordinationofMuslim,Christianandotherminorities.Golwalkar, thefounderoftheRSSfounder,wasanadmirerofHitlerandNaziGermany. RSS members assassinated Mahatma Gandhi for “appeasing Muslims” by advocatingHindu–Muslimunity.Bannedduringthe1950sto1970s,theRSS reemergedinthelate1970saspartoftheoppositiontotheCongressParty governmentthat,ledbyIndiraGandhi,hadimposedastateofEmergency, suspending civil liberties during 1975–77. In the 1980s, the RSS sought to expand its following beyond its upper-caste Hindu base. Although the RSS doesnotdirectlyparticipateinelectoralpolitics,ithasstronglinkswiththe BJPthatdoes;itisalsoaffiliatedwithanumberofotherHinduorganizations, suchastheVishwaHinduParishad(WorldHinduForum),theShivSenaand theBajrangDal,togethermakinguptheSanghParivar(RSSFamily).Apivotal eventintheHindunationalistprojectwastheDecember1992demolitionof theBabriMasjid,anobscuremosqueinthenorthIndianstateofUttarPradesh, whichtheSanghParivarclaimedwasthebirthplaceofLordRam.Thedispute overthissiteandothershassparkedviolenceintheformofcommunalriots, incidentsthathavehardenedreligiousidentities.ThecampaignsoftheSangh Parivar seek to extirpate all aspects of the syncretic Hindu–Muslim culture that marks India. They range from rewriting history textbooks to running neighborhoodshakhas(branches)wheregroupsofmen,womenandchildren imbibe a monolithic Hindu view of the world and a sense of Muslims as theenemy.ThereisanextensiveliteratureontheRSSandtheriseofHindu nationalisminIndianpoliticsandculture;seeHansen(1999)andBhatt(2001) forcriticalreviews. 5. ThecurrentSanghParivarstrategyofclaimingautochthonousoriginsfor Aryansisaninversionofthisargument,nowaimedatemphasizingdistance fromMuslim“outsiders.” 6. TransfersoflandtononadivasisareprohibitedinFifthScheduleareas. Untilrecently,thiswasinterpretedtoapplyonlytoprivatetransfers,withthe stateempoweredtoacquireandallocateadivasilandtoothers,butin1997 theSupremeCourtruledthateventhegovernmentcouldnottransferland toprivateparties.Seethemines,mineralandPEOPLEwebsite(http://www. mmpindia.org, accessed December 30, 2006) for details about the Samata judgment against state lease of adivasi land to mining corporations. The law has usually been implemented in the breach; many adivasis have seen theirlandpassintothehandsofnonadivasimoneylendersandtraders.Fifth Scheduleareasalsoreceivespecialfundsfromthecentralgovernmenttoward TribalDevelopment.AlloverIndia,eightpercentofallgovernmentjobsand
IndianIndigeneities:AdivasiEngagementswithHinduNationalisminIndia 295
seats in educational institutions are reserved for adivasis (in proportion to their presence in the Indian population). On the success of this policy of protective discrimination, see Xaxa (2001). The Sixth Schedule areas lie in north–eastIndia(seenote8). 7. ThePESAempowersvillagebodiesinadivasiareastomanagenatural resources,includingland,forests,andwater.Itauthorizestheuseofcustomary practicesforsettlingdisputes.Afar-reachinginitiativeatdecentralizingpower, theacthasalreadyrunintotrouble,andhasnotbeenimplementedinmost states. The proposed Scheduled Tribes and Forest Dwellers (Recognition of ForestRights)Actoffersaone-timesettlementgrantinglandtitlestoadivasis whohavebeencultivatinglandunderthecontroloftheForestDepartment. The bill provides a maximum of 2.5 hectares of forest land to each adivasi householdiftheycanprovetoagramsabha(village-levelbody)thattheyhave beenfarmingthatlandatleastsince1980.Althoughtheactpromisestoundo thehistoricalinjusticeofforestalienation(Baviskar1994),itisfiercelyopposed byenvironmentalistswhofearthatitwillresultinlarge-scaleconversionsof foreststofarmsandwillencouragefutureencroachmentsonforests. 8. ThesituationofScheduledTribesinthenortheasternhillstatesofAssam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Tripura, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, and Nagaland differsfromthecaseofpeninsularIndiaforavarietyofhistorical,legaland administrative,andculturalreasons. 9. For formally educated adivasi women too, sartorial preferences have shifted,althoughnottotheupper-casteHindumodeofsareewearing,butto thesalwar-kameezand,aftermarriage,thepetticoatandhalf-sareefavoredby moreprosperousadivasisintheplainsofNimar.Ontheculturalpoliticsof clothinginGujarat,seeTarlo(1996). 10. Rentingasmallroom,owningaradioandanelectricfan,entertaining friends,visitingrelatives,aspiringtobuyatelevisionset,and,mostcoveted,a motorcycle—thislifestyleisdifficulttoaffordformostadivasis. 11. ThepresenceofMuslims(12percentofthepopulation)inIndiarepresentsaneternalthorninthesideoftheSanghParivar,fuellingtheimaginary threatofbeingoutnumberedandmarginalized.Theviolencethatmarkedthe PartitionofBritishIndiain1947,whenPakistanwascreatedbycarvingout Muslim-dominatedareas,andthecontinuingdisputeoverKashmirbetween thetwocountries,aretwomajorelementsinthenarrativeofHindu–Muslim hostilitiesinIndia. 12. TheRSShasfundedingeniousarchaeologicalstudiesto“prove”thatthe AryansdidnotmigratefromcentralAsiafourthousandyearsagobutwere nativetothesubcontinent(WitzelandFarmer2000). 13. Most Scheduled Tribes in north–east India are Christian, as are some adivasisincentralandsouthIndia,andintheAndamanandNicobarislands. Muslimadivasisarerare.
296
Amita Baviskar
14. Baviskar 1995a (ch. 4) argues that, despite processes of Hinduization in the region, interaction with Hindu culture in neighboring bazaars and townshashelpedproduceandsustainadistinctiveadivasiidentity.Alsosee Hardiman(1987).Anotheraccountofthebhagatmovementcanbefoundin Baviskar(1997a). 15. The genealogy of sudhaar or improvement is worth delineating. The notionofImprovementpervadedimperialprojectsinthecolonies.Ideasof improvement,ofhusbandingresources,controllinglandsandpeoplesforthe purposeofconservation,bettermanagementformoreefficientexploitation, wereanintrinsicpartofcolonialenterprise(CowenandShenton1996;Mehta 1999). Empire was justified as an instrument of development, of “fostering and leading new races of subjects and allies in the career of improvement” (StamfordRaffles,quotedinDrayton2000:94).ThecolonialcritiqueofOriental religions sparked off soul searching among Hindus and Muslims struggling withtheEnlightenmentproject,contributingtoattemptsatreformation.The missiontoreinvigorateHinduismbyremovingthestrangleholdofpriestsand theaccretionsofritualandcustomresultedintheemergenceofsectslikethe AryaSamaj,dedicatedtotakingHinduismbacktoitsVedicroots.TheBrahmo Samaj in Bengal combined Christian values with Hinduism. Contemporary notions of sudhaar draw on this fusion of religious and secular notions of moralandmaterialbetterment. 16. SeeBaviskar(1995a:97–103)foradescriptionofthemataphenomenon. 17. Parkin(2000)describestherevivalofadivasireligionamongtheSanthals ineast–centralIndia,andtheircampaigntonotbeclassifiedasHindusinthe census.In1971,300,000peopleintheChhotaNagpurareareportedSarnaas theirreligion,self-consciouslydistinguishingthemselvesfromHindus.Inthe 1991census,thisnumberhadswollento1,800,000.AccordingtoB.K.Roy Burman, the doyen of tribal anthropology in India, the number of adivasis reportinga“tribal”religionsuchasBhilandGondhasincreaseddramatically as well (Roy Burman, personal communication, May 8, 2000). Most of the evidenceinwesternIndianpointstowardgreaterHinduization,butperhaps this moment is also marked by the crystallization of a lesser current—the assertion of an autonomous “tribal” culture. This may also result in new electoralformations.Inthelastfiveyears,anewadivasipoliticalgroupcalled theGondwanaGantantrikParty([GGP]GondwanaRepublicanParty)hasbeen formedintheMahakoshalregionofcentralMP.Operatinginaregionwhere 54percentofthepopulationbelongstotheScheduledTribesand22percent of people identify themselves as of the Gond tribe, the GGP claims 1,700 years of “glorious history,” a past when Gond kings and queens ruled large territories.Besidesrunninganantiliquorcampaignandorganizingbanksfor ruralwomen,theGGPhassuccessfullycontestedthestateassemblyelections.
IndianIndigeneities:AdivasiEngagementswithHinduNationalisminIndia 297
Accordingtooneobserver,theGGPhasrefutedtheBJPclaimthatadivasisare HindusbyburningcopiesofthereligioustextRamayana(M.PrakashSingh, personalcommunication,October7,2005). 18. Sundar (2004) analyzes the pedagogy of Sangh Parivar–run schools in adivasi areas of Chhattisgarh (formerly eastern MP). Benei (2000) argues that even state-run schools promote a soft-Hindutva line on nationalism, indicatingthepervasivenessofHindutvaideologyinsecularcivilsociety. 19. HindunationaliststakecaretoalwaysrefertotheScheduledTribesas vanvasis(forestdwellers)andnotasadivasis(originaldwellers).Using“adivasi” for the Scheduled Tribes would not be consistent with the Sangh Parivar’s contentionthatallHindus,andnotjusttheScheduledTribes,aretheoriginal inhabitants of India. The Vanvasi Kalyan Manch (Forum for the Welfare of ForestDwellers),foundedin1952,claimstohaveactiveunitsin20,000villages inthe276districtsthathavetribalpopulations.Itsmissionistoreestablish and strengthen “the blurred cultural links [between vanvasis and Hindus] andtoweanthevanvasiawayfromtheevilinfluenceofforeignmissionaries, anti-social,andanti-nationalforces”(VanvasiKalyanAshramn.d.). 20. InotherpartsoftribalIndia,Christiangroupshavehistoricallystepped intothebreachinasimilarmanner. 21. CalendarswithlusholeographsofIndiangodsandgoddesseshavebeen apopularandinexpensiveformofwallartinIndiasincethe1950s. 22. Lobo(2002:4845)reportsthatadivasisinGujaratwereinvolvedinthe rituals and mobilization leading up the demolition of the Babri mosque as earlyas1990. 23. Saffronizationisatermcommonlyusedtoindicatethegrowinginfluence oftheSanghParivar.Thecolorsaffron,usedtosignifyrenunciation(sadhus wearsaffron),hasnowcometoconnotemilitantHinduism. 24. Asadistrictwheremorethan80percentofthepopulationisadivasi, electoralseatstothenationalparliamentandtothestatelegislativeassembly arereservedforadivasis. 25. TheBJPalsodefeatedtheCongressPartyinstategovernmentelections in the two newly constituted adivasi majority states of Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh. 26. There had been an earlier incident in 1988 in Jhabua, 70 kilometers northoftheNarmadavalleyinthesamedistrict.Anadivasimobbrokeinto church premises and raped four Catholic nuns. A government inquiry into theincidentfadedawayinconclusively.TheinvolvementoftheSanghParivar wasnotproven. 27. TheassumptionthatadivasisaredefaultHindusisalsoreflectedinIndian laws against proselytization that target tribal conversions to Christianity, withoutsimilarlyprohibitingHinduproselytization(Xaxa2000:23).
298
Amita Baviskar
28. Hartosh Singh Bal, “Faith Seeks a Market” in Indian Express. January 25, 2004. The ostensible provocation for the violence was that the body of a nine-year-old girl who had been raped and murdered was found in the Catholic mission school. The girl was Hindu. After a mob had expressed its “anger against Christian depredations on innocent Hindu girls,” it was discoveredthattheculpritwasaHinduman.However,bythistime,theBJP was in power in MP and the state government ordered an inquiry into the incident.NarendraPrasad,theretiredseniorpoliceofficerwhowasappointed investigator,submittedhisreportinMay2005.Thoseportionsofthereport that have been made public indicate that it is a document tailor-made for theHindutvacause,solidlypushingitscommunalclaims.Accordingtothe report, Christian missionaries in Jhabua were forcibly converting adivasis andwerethereforeattackedbyoutragedadivasis-Hindus.Independentinvestigatorshavefoundnoevidenceofforcibleconversions.EvenlocalBJPleaders say that they did not know of any forcible conversions. Pintoo Jaiswal, a BJP activist and the vice chairman of the Alirajpur municipal corporation, said, “My children are studying in missionary schools. They have never complainedofanyattempttoconvertthem”(MilliGazette2005).Thereport also mentions the “worrying” fact that the Christian population of Jhabua hasincreasedmorethan80percentin1991–2001,astatisticthatneglectsto mentionthatChristiansarelessthan2percentofJhabuadistrict’spopulation, and a minuscule 0.28 percent of the population of MP state. The familiar scare-mongering strategies of the Sangh Parivar, the fear of surging Muslim andChristianpopulationsmakingHindusaminorityin“theirown”country, aregiventhestampofquasi-judicialauthoritybythisreport.Inturn,theBJP governmentinMPisusingthereporttojustifynewrulesfurtherrestricting adivasiconversionstoChristianity. 29. SeeBaviskar1995a,2004(esp.chs.8,9,epilogue,andpostscriptin2004 edition)foradetailedanalysisofAndolanandSangathpoliticsamongBhilala adivasis. 30. Dalit (lit., “oppressed”) is the collective name adopted by the former “untouchable”castes,whomakeup16.2percentofIndia’spopulation(1991 census). 31. Thelinktoforestsisacriticalelementindistinguishingadivasiclaims to land from those of another land-based group—peasants. See Baviskar (1995a: ch. 9) for the different styles of claims making by Bhilala adivasis andNimariHindupeasantsfromtheplainsintheircollectivestruggleagainst displacement. 32. TheworkofanthropologistVerrierElwin(1964),widelyinfluentialin shapingEnglish-educatedIndians’attitudestowardadivasis,bestexemplifies thisperspective.SeealsohisethnographiesofvariousIndiantribes.
IndianIndigeneities:AdivasiEngagementswithHinduNationalisminIndia 299
33. Interview on camera with filmmaker Ali Kazimi for his documentary TheValleyRises.MytranslationfromtheBhilali.IamgratefultoAliKazimifor lettingmeusethismaterial. 34. The Suvarnarekha, Koel Karo, and Netarhat campaigns in east– central India, the campaign against mining in the Gandhamardan hills in Orissa, the Andhra Pradesh antimining campaign led by Samata, are but a fewofthemovementsthatstressadivasiculturalrightsinthefightagainst displacement. 35. Suchreassurancesareself-serving;theactualexperienceofrehabilitationhasbeenhorrific.Forevaluationsoftherehabilitationexperiencewith the Sardar Sarovar Project, see the Friends of River Narmada website (www. narmada.org, accessed December 30, 2006). Dreze et al. (1997) discuss the conceptualissuesunderlyingthedisplacementdebate.Amorerecentanalysis of the pros and cons of displacement by the SSP can be found in Dwivedi (2006). 36. Beth Conklin (1997) describes similar strategies at work in the Amazonianrainforest. 37. Indigenousstrugglesarealsoperceivedasstrugglesforenvironmental sustainability. See Baviskar (1995a: ch. 6) for an analysis of the constrained and contradictory practices that make it difficult to attribute ecological virtuetoBhilalaadivasis.PeterBrosius(1997)describeshow,inthecontext ofamovementforindigenousrightstotheforestsinBorneo,metropolitan environmentalistsuniversalizethecomplexanddiversepracticesofthePenan intoahomogenousnarrativeaboutthesacredwisdomof“forestpeople.” 38. See Baviskar (2004: postscript) for an account of the situation in the Narmadavalleysincethatruling. 39. Baviskar(1997a).ThestateofJharkhandwascreatedfromthesouthern districtsofBiharin2000afteracentury-longmovementtocreateanadivasi homeland in this forested and mineral-rich part of India. The state of ChhattisgarhwasformedoutoftheeasterndistrictsofMPatthesametime. VirginiusXaxa(1999:3594)arguesthatdespiteitsempiricalandconceptual problems,adivasidemandsforahomelandadoptatried-and-testedtemplate formakingpoliticalclaims.BecausetheIndiansystemofstatesisbasedon linguisticidentitymappedtospecificregions,theterritorialprivilegesoflinguisticallydominantcommunitiesarerecognizedwhereasthoseofadivasisare not.Thenotionofanadivasihomelandisaculturalclaimonparwiththe culturalclaimsoflinguisticcommunities;whereastheformerisdisputed,the latteristakenforgranted. 40. Seenote7. 41. IdiscussthepredicamentofmigrantsinDelhiinBaviskar(2003),and compare the discourses of rural and urban displacement, arguing that slum
300
Amita Baviskar
dwellersinDelhiclaimrightstolandbyhighlightingnotculturalattachment buttheinvestmentoflaborinmakingaplacehabitable(Baviskarinpress). 42. These shifts do not signify a rupture between two distinct periods as muchascertainpreexistingcountercurrentscomingtodominateaparticular conjuncture in Indian politics. The resounding defeat of the BJP in the national government elections in 2004 and the subsequent disarray of the party may well signal the beginning of the end of the political dominance ofHindunationalism.Yetthepartycontinuestobeinpowerinstatessuch as MP, Gujarat, and Rajasthan, and the “tribal” states of Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. 43. Seenote7.
References Baviskar,Amita.1994.Thefateoftheforest:Conservationandtribal rights.EconomicandPoliticalWeekly29(38):2493–2501. ——.1995a.Inthebellyoftheriver:Tribalconflictsoverdevelopmentin theNarmadaValley.Delhi:OxfordUniversityPress. ——.1995b.Thepoliticalusesofsociology.SociologicalBulletin44(1): 89–96. ——.1997a.Tribalpoliticsanddiscoursesofenvironmentalism.ContributionstoIndianSociology31(2):195–223. ——.1997b.WhoSpeaksfortheVictims?Seminar451:59–61. ——.2001. Written on the body, written on the land: Violence and environmental struggles in central India. In Violent environments, edited by Nancy Peluso and Michael Watts, 354–379. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversityPress. ——.2003.Betweenviolenceanddesire:Space,powerandidentityin themakingofmetropolitanDelhi.InternationalSocialScienceJournal 175:89–98. ——.2004.Inthebellyoftheriver:Tribalconflictsoverdevelopmentinthe NarmadaValley.2ndedition.Delhi:OxfordUniversityPress. ——.inpress.Breakinghomes,makingcities:Classandgenderinthe politicsofurbandisplacement.InGenderandDisplacement,edited byLylaMehta. Benei,Veronique.2000.TeachingnationalisminMaharashtraschools. InTheeverydaystateandsocietyinmodernIndia,editedbyC.J.Fuller andVeroniqueBenei,194–221.NewDelhi:SocialSciencePress. Beteille, Andre. 1986. The concept of tribe with special reference to India.EuropeanJournalofSociology27:297–318.
IndianIndigeneities:AdivasiEngagementswithHinduNationalisminIndia 301
——.1998.Theideaofindigenouspeople.CurrentAnthropology39(2): 187–191. Bhatt,Chetan.2001.Hindunationalism:Origins,ideologiesandmodern myths.NewYork:Berg. Brosius,J.Peter.1997.Endangeredforest,endangeredpeople:Environmentalistrepresentationsofindigenousknowledge.HumanEcology 25(1):47–69. ——.1999.Analysesandinterventions:Anthropologicalengagements withenvironmentalism.CurrentAnthropology40(3):277–288. Conklin,Beth.1997.Bodypaint,feathers,andVCRs:Aestheticsand authenticity in Amazonian activism. American Ethnologist 24 (4): 711–737. Conklin,Beth,andLauraGraham.1995.Theshiftingmiddleground: AmazonianIndiansandeco-politics.AmericanAnthropologist97(4): 695–710. Courtright,Paul.1985.Ganesa:Lordofobstacles,lordofbeginnings.New York:OxfordUniversityPress. Cowen, M. P., and R. W. Shenton. 1996. Doctrines of development. London:Routledge. Deshpande,Satish.1997.Fromdevelopmenttoadjustment:Economic ideologies,themiddleclassand50yearsofindependence.Reviewof DevelopmentandChange2(2):294–318. Devy,G.N.2002.Tribalvoiceandviolence.Seminar513:39–48. Drayton, Richard. 2000. Nature’s government: Science, imperial Britain, andthe“improvement”oftheworld.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversity Press. Dreze,Jean,MeeraSamson,andSatyajitSingh,eds.1997.Thedamand thenation:DisplacementandresettlementintheNarmadaValley.Delhi: OxfordUniversityPress. Dwivedi,Ranjit.2006.Resourceconflictandcollectiveaction:TheSardar SarovarProjectinIndia.NewDelhi:SagePublications. Elwin,Verrier.1964.ThetribalworldofVerrierElwin:Anautobiography. NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. Ghurye,G.S.1963.Thescheduledtribes.Bombay:PopularPrakashan. Guha,Ramachandra.1989.RadicalAmericanenvironmentalismand wildernesspreservation:AThirdWorldcritique.EnvironmentalEthics 11(1):71–83. Guha,Ranajit.1983.Elementaryaspectsofpeasantinsurgencyincolonial India.Delhi:OxfordUniversityPress. Guha, Sumit. 1999. Environment and ethnicity in India, 1200–1991. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
302
Amita Baviskar
Gupta,Akhil.1998.Postcolonialdevelopments:Agricultureinthemaking ofmodernIndia.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress. Hansen,ThomasBlom.1999.Thesaffronwave:Hindunationalismand democracyinmodernIndia.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress. Hardiman, David. 1987. The coming of the Devi: Adivasi assertion in westernIndia.Delhi:OxfordUniversityPress. International Working Group on Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA). 1995. Theindigenousworld1994–95.Copenhagen:IWGIA. Joshi,Vidyut.1991.Rehabilitation:Apromisetokeep.Ahmedabad:Tax Publications. Li,TaniaMurray.2000.ArticulatingindigenousidentityinIndonesia: Resourcepoliticsandthetribalslot.ComparativeStudiesinSocietyand History42(1):149–179. Lobo,Lancy.2002.Adivasis,Hindutvaandpost-GodhrariotsinGujarat. EconomicandPoliticalWeekly37(48):4844–4849. Ludden,David,ed.1996.MakingIndiaHindu:Religion,communityand thepoliticsofdemocracyinIndia.Delhi:OxfordUniversityPress. Malkki,Liisa.1992.Nationalgeographic:Therootingofpeoplesandthe territorialisationofnationalidentityamongscholarsandrefugees. CulturalAnthropology7(1):24–44. Marx,Karl.1963[1852].TheeighteenthbrumaireofLouisBonaparte.New York:InternationalPublishers. McMichael, Philip. 1996. Development and social change: A global perspective.ThousandOaks,CA:PineForgePress. Mehta,UdaySingh.1999.Liberalismandempire:AstudyinnineteenthcenturyBritishliberalthought.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. MilliGazette.2005.Conversionallegationbaseless.Electronicdocument, http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/2005/20050909Conversion.htm,accessedJanuary5,2007. Morse,Bradford,andThomasBerger.1992.SardarSarovar:Thereportof theindependentreview.Ottawa:ResourceFuturesInternational. Parkin, Robert. 2000. Proving “Indigenity,” Exploiting Modernity. Anthropos95:49–63. Redford,KentH.1991.Theecologicallynoblesavage.CulturalSurvival Quarterly15(1):46–48. Shah,Ghanshyam.1985.Tribalidentityandclassdifferentiation:Acase studyoftheChaudhritribe.InCaste,casteconflictandreservations, editedbyGhanshyamShah,44–60.Delhi:Ajanta. Shah,Ghanshyam,HarshMander,SukhdeoThorat,SatishDeshpande, andAmitaBaviskar.2006.UntouchabilityinruralIndia.NewDelhi: SagePublications.
IndianIndigeneities:AdivasiEngagementswithHinduNationalisminIndia 303
Skaria,Ajay.1999.Hybridhistories:Forests,frontiersandwildnessinwestern India.Delhi:OxfordUniversityPress. Sundar, Nandini. 1997. Subalterns and sovereigns: An anthropological historyofBastar,1854–1996.Delhi:OxfordUniversityPress. ——.2004.Teachingtohate:RSS’pedagogicalprogramme.Economic andPoliticalWeekly38(April17):1605–1612. Tarlo,Emma.1996.Clothingmatters:DressandidentityinIndia.Chicago: UniversityofChicagoPress. Tsing,AnnaL.1999.Becomingatribalelder,andothergreendevelopment fantasies.InTransformingtheIndonesianuplands:Marginality,power andproduction,editedbyTaniaM.Li,159–202.Amsterdam:Harwood AcademicPress. Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram. n.d. Electronic document, http://hindunet. org/vanvasi,accessedJanuary5,2007. Varadarajan,Siddharth,ed.2003.Gujarat:Themakingofatragedy.New Delhi:PenguinIndia. Williams,Raymond.1980.Problemsinmaterialismandculture.London: Verso. Witzel,Michael,andSteveFarmer.2000.HorseplayinHarappa:The IndusValleydeciphermenthoax.Frontline,October13:23–26. Xaxa,Virginius.1999.TribesasindigenouspeopleofIndia.Economic andPoliticalWeekly34(51):3589–3596. ——.2000.Tribes,conversionandtheSanghParivar.Jnanadeepa3(1): 23–35. ——.2001.Protectivediscrimination:Whyscheduledtribeslagbehind scheduledcastes.EconomicandPoliticalWeekly36(29):2765–2772.
This page intentionally left blank
e l e v e n
“Ever-Diminishing Circles”: The Paradoxes of Belonging in Botswana Francis B. Nyamnjoh
T
odefineindigenouspeoplessimplyasthosewho“weretherefirst and are still there, and so have rights to their lands” (MayburyLewis2005)istoinciteinquiryabouttherealityofflexibilityofinternal andexternalmigrationandthepolitical,cultural,economic,andhistorical factors that have configured competing articulations of being indigenous (Garbutt 2006; Mercer 2003). Although such strategic essentialismmaybeunderstandableandindeedusefulinthepursuitof commonambitionsofdominanceorinredressinginjusticescollectively experienced“asacolonizedpeople,”ithardlyprovidesfortheorizing pre-andpostcolonialidentitiesascomplex,negotiated,andrelational experiences(Nyamnjoh2002a).Qualifyingtobeconsidered“authentic” isafunctionofthewayrace,geography,culture,class,andgenderdefine and prescribe, include and exclude. These hierarchies of humanity assume different forms depending on encounters, power relations, andprevalentnotionsofpersonhood,agency,andcommunity.Africa offersfascinatingexamplesofhowthetermindigenouswasarbitrarily employedintheserviceofcolonizingforces,ofhowpeopleshavehad recoursetoindigeneityintheirstrugglesagainstcolonialism,andof howgroupsvyingforresourcesandpoweramongstthemselveshave deployedcompetingclaimstoindigeneityinrelationtooneanother. Thus,inAfrica,themeaningof“indigenous”hasvariedtremendously. Here,communitieslargeandsmallhavebothacceptedandcontested arbitrarycolonialandpostcolonialadministrativeboundariesandthe
305
306
Francis B. Nyamnjoh
dynamics of dispossession. Failing to achieve the idealized “nationstate” form and relatively weak vis-à-vis global forces, governments haveoftensoughttocapitalizeonthecontradictoryandcomplementary dimensions of civic, ethnic, and cultural citizenships. In this context,beingindigenoussocioanthropologicallyismuchmorethan merely claiming to be or being regarded as the first. Under colonial and apartheid regimes of divide-and-rule, to be called “indigenous” was first to create and impose a proliferation of “native identities” circumscribedbyarbitraryphysicalandculturalgeographies;second,it wastomakepossiblenotonlydistinctionsbetweencolonized“native” andcolonizingEuropeansbutalsobetween“nativecitizens”and“native settlers” among ethnic communities within the same colony; and third,itwastobeprimitive,andthereforeaperfectjustificationfor thecolonialmissioncivilizatrice(civilizingmission),fordispossession andconfinementtoofficiallydesignatedtribalterritories,homelands orBantustans,oftenincallousdisregardtothehistoriesofrelationships andinterconnectionsforgedwithexcludedothers,orthedifferences andtensionsevenamongtheincluded.Inall,beingindigenouswas forthemajoritycolonized“native”populationtobeshuntedtothe margins. These dynamics of classification and rule conceived of the “natives” through frozen ideas of culture and imagined traditions appliedunder“decentralizeddespotisms”inruralareas,whilethetown andcitywerereservedfortheminoritycolonialsettlerpopulationand theirpurportedly“modernising,”“cultured”and“detribalised”African servantsandsupportstaff(Mamdani1996,1998). IfthisnegativehistorystillshapesthehighlycriticalstanceofAfrican intellectualsandnationaliststowardallclaimsofautochthony,ithas also, quite paradoxically, tended to render invisible the everyday realityofpostcolonialAfricans(includingthosesameintellectualsand nationalists)asstraddlersofcivic,ethnic,andculturalcitizenships,on theonehand,andmultipleglobalandlocalcosmopolitanidentities,on theotherhand(Englund2004a,2004b;Ferguson1999;Nyamnjoh2005). Withgrowinguncertaintiesandthequestioningoftheinadequacies of civic citizenship and its illusions of autonomy, rigid and highly exclusionaryaffirmationsofbeingindigenoushavebecomeobsessive amongmajorityandminoritycommunitiesalikewithinvariousstates inAfrica. Thischapterexaminesongoingtensionsoverentitlements,cultural “purity,”andbelongingandexclusionamongethnicgroupsinBotswana. IwanttoshowthatinAfrica,wherethenation-stateprojecthasbeen achievedmoreinrhetoricthaninreality,indigeneityisclaimednot
“Ever-DiminishingCircles”:TheParadoxesofBelonginginBotswana 307
onlyby“firstpeoples,”butbyotherethnic(majoritiesandminorities) communitiesaswell.MyexaminationoftheBotswanacaseleadsmeto makethecaseforgreaterrecognitionofwhatIcall“flexibleindigeneity” inacontextofflexiblemobility.
IndigeneityinBotswana Botswana has one of the fastest growing economies in the world, andisrelativelybettermanagedthanmostothereconomiesinAfrica (Fombad1999;Taylor2002).Inspiteorperhapsbecauseofthisimpressiveeconomicrecord,Botswanahaswitnessedaresurgenceoftensions concerning indigeneity and belonging since the mid-1980s. In the languageoftheTswanamajority(Setswana),anethnicgroup(“tribe”) is referred to generally as “morafhe” (pl.: Merafhe), less commonly sechaba.Morafhealsodenotesalargepublicassembly,gathering,or multitude.Atindependence,Sechabacametosignifynationalismand theforgingofanimaginedcommunityofcitizensofacommonfatherland—Botswana.Fromthenationalanthem(PinayaSechaba)tothe nationalstadium(lebalalasechaba),throughotherpublicstructures, Sechabacametosymbolizetheglueneededtointegratetheroughly 20differentethnicindigeneitiesintoaBotswananation-state.Butthis experimentatSechabaintheimageofthebigeightTswanaMerafheonly seemtohavestrengthenedtheresolveofthesmallermerafhetoseek recognitionandrepresentationfortheirlanguageandculturalvalues, especiallysincethemid-1980s.AlthougheveryBotswananationalcan claimjuridicopoliticalcitizenshipwithintheframeworkofthemodern nation-state,someareperceivedbyothersaslessauthentic.Without therighttoparamountchiefsoftheirownandtorepresentationin thenationalHouseofChiefsas“tribes”intheirownright,minorities increasinglyseethemselvesmoreassubjectsthancitizens,evenwhen clearly more indigenous to the territory. Identity politics and more exclusionaryideasofbelonginghavebecomeincreasinglysignificant. Minority claims for greater cultural recognition and plurality are countered by majoritarian efforts to maintain the status quo of an inheritedcolonialhierarchyofethnicgroupings. Thisdevelopmentisparalleledbyincreasedawarenessanddistinction between“insiders”and“outsiders,”withtheemphasisonopportunities andeconomicentitlements(Durham1993;Nyamnjoh2002b,2006). Increasingly,Batswanaperceivethemselvesastheownersofthehome (benggae),anddifferentiatebetweenthosewhobelongwiththem(ba gaetsho),andclose(Batswakwa)ordistant(Makwerekwere)outsiders.
308
Francis B. Nyamnjoh
Atformalgatherings,speakersoftenarticulatesocialdistancewitha viewtoentitlementsbydistinguishingbetweenthoseherepresent(Ba gaetsho),andoutsiders(bafaladi).Asthepressuresanduncertainties ofglobalconsumercapitalismintensify,landallocationhasbecome oneofthemainarenaswheredistinctionbetweenthetrulydeserving sons and daughters of the soil (bana ba) and squatters (maipaafela) fromelsewhereisplayedout(Werbner2004:109–130).Agoodcasein pointisMogoditshane,aBakwenaperiurbanvillagenearGaborone, oneofthefastestgrowingcitiesintheworldthatattractsthousandsof migrantsfromelsewhereinBotswana,Africa,andtheworld(Campbell andOucho2003;Nyamnjoh2002b;Ritsema2003).Forover20years, Mogoditshane’sproximitytoGaboronehasattractedbothnationalsand foreignersseekingeasyaccesstoland.BecauselandinMogoditshane iscategorizedas“tribal,”itisallocatedfreelyasopposedtoGaborone wherelandis“national”andforsale(Werbner2004:109–130).Over thelasttenyears,muchoftheunrestinMogoditshanehasbeenabout outsiders(Batswakwa)grabbinglandattheexpenseofthemorafheor benggae.Increasingly,thosewhoconsiderthemselvesmoreindigenous toMogoditshanevillageandtheBakwenaethnicareahavechallenged thelandrightsofothers,regardlessofhowlongtheperceivedoutsiders havelivedinthevillageorhowintegratedtheyhavebecomethrough relationshipswith“indigenes.”EvenchallengedareBatswakwawho have contested for and been voted into parliament to represent the verysamevillage,beatingthe“moreindigenous”sonsanddaughters ofthevillage(banabaMogoditshane)toit. Theinstinctfor“ethniccitizens”tofeelmoreentitledto“triballand” over“ethnicstrangers”isnotconfinedtoMogoditshane,asattitudesto decisionsbythe12landboardsandtheir38subordinatesdemonstrate. Evenwhenacceptinglandboardsasarbitrators,Batswana“haveoften perceived Board actions to be arbitrary—as subject to unreasonably long delays between Land Boards and the Subordinate Boards; contrary to prior understandings of the rule of law; and diverging from expectations of public order that is regular and predictable” (Werbner2004:111–112).“Ethniccitizens,”especiallyinperiurban triballand,readilychallengethedecisionsoflandboardsthatappear to favor “ethnic settlers” or total strangers (immigrants). Recently, for example, residents of Tlokweng, a Batlokwa village just outside of Gaborone, opposed the allocation of a big plot to the Botswana HousingCorporation(BHC),advancingasreasonthatthe“authentic” childrenofthevillagecommunity(banabaBatlokwa)donothave land. Thisisindeedmosttelling,atacloserlook,becausemanyof
“Ever-DiminishingCircles”:TheParadoxesofBelonginginBotswana 309
thesamechildrenofBatlokwahavepurchasedhomesfromthesame BHCelsewhereinthecityandcountry,sold“tribal”landtheywere freelyallocatedinTlokwengto“outsiders,”andacquiredlandinother partsofthecountry.Becausetriballanddoesnothavethesamevalue everywhere,periurbanvillagesnearcitieswherelandismorevaluable, wantgreaterprotectionoftheirindigeneitythanlandboards,intheir current structure and role, can offer. Paradoxically, the customary Tswanapolicyofinclusionisbeingreconfiguredbythosemanaging entitlementstothefruitofeconomicgrowthinaneraofaccelerated flowsofcapitalandmigrants(Nyamnjoh2006). Botswana’s linguistic and ethnic structure (see Table 1) represents thehierarchyofindigeneityinculturalandpoliticalterms.Although theBantulanguages(headedbySetswana)andthegroupstowhich theyareindigenousarethemostvisiblesocially,culturallyandpolitically,theKhoesanlanguagesandtheBasarwa–Bushman–Khoesanthat speakthemarethemostmarginalized,despitethefacttheyarehistoricallythemostautochthonous.Inparticular,Setswana,thelanguageof thenineTswanagroups(“tribes”),hasoverthecenturiesassumeda dominantposition,thanksmainlytotheprominenceoftheTswana undercolonialrule:thefactthattheTswana“tribes”asimaginedby the European colonizers had, more than all others, lent themselves to “convenient administration” and “convenient evangelization” (MacGaffey1995:1031),madethegroupandtheirlanguagethemost visibletothecolonialadministration,tothemissionariesandultimately toalltheothergroups.Today,EnglishandSetswanaexclusivelyenjoy thestatusofofficiallanguagesforstateinstitutionsandpublicbusiness, whilethelanguagesofthe“ethnicminorities”havebeenrelegatedto themargins,disallowedeveninschoolsandlocalitiesinwhichsuch minoritiesareinthemajority.Curiously,althoughhistoricallythelast tomigratetotheterritory,thesplinterTswanagroupsvariouslynamed aftertheirfounderleadershave,thankstotheirhegemony,succeededin legitimatingtheirversionofindigeneityandclaimsofauthenticityover allothersasthe“first”citizensoftheBotswananation-state.Thishas happeneddespitethefactthattheTswanaareneitherahomogeneous unit,northeirlanguage(Setswana)withoutvariants.1Historiansand anthropologists have documented inter- and intra-Tswana conflicts, rangingfromlandtosuccessiondisputes,withoutexcludingschisms (Comaroff1978;ComaroffandRoberts1981;Nyamnjoh2003;Parsons et al 1995; Ramsay et al. 1996), a clear indication that there is no essentialTswanaentity,but,rather,amarriageofconveniencewhere harmonyismoreassumedthanevident.
310
Francis B. Nyamnjoh
Table1. Botswana’sLinguisticandEthnicStructure Linguistic category
LanguageFamily Group
SeTswana
Bantu,Southern
Ikalanga Se-Birwa Se-Tswapong Se-Kgalagadi
Bantu,Eastern Bantu,Southern Bantu,Southern Bantu,Southern
Shiyeyi Otjiherero Thimbukushu Sesubiya Nama !Xoo Ju/’hoan Makaukau Naro /Gwi //Gana Kxoe Shua Tshwa Afrikaans
Bantu,Western? Bantu,Western Bantu,Western Bantu,Central Khoesan Khoesan,Southern Khoesan,Northern Khoesan,Northern Khoesan,Central Khoesan,Central KhoesanCentral Khoesan,Central Khoesan,Cenral Khoesan,Central Indo-European
AssociatedEthnic Groups BaKgatla BaKwena BaNgwaketse BaNgwato BaRolong BaTlokwa BaTawana BaLete BaKhurutshe BaKalanga BaBirwa BaTswapong BaKgalagadi BaBgologa BaBoalongwe BaNgologa BaShaga BaPhaleng BaYeyi BaHerero/BaNderu Hambukushu BaSubiya/Bekuhane Nama !Xoo Ju/’hoan MaKaukau Naro /Gwi //Gana Kxoe Shua Tshwa Afrikaans
Administrative District Kgatleng Kweneng Southern:Ngwaketse Central Southern:Barolonge SouthEast NorthWest SouthEast Central NorthEast/Central Central Central Kgalagadi,Kweneng, NorthWest
NorthWest NorthWest NorthWest NorthWest Kgalagadi/Ghanzi Kgalagadi&others NorthWest Ghanzi Ghanzi Southern/Ghanzi Central/Ghanzi NorthWest Central Central/Kwenene Ghanzi
Source:Selolwane2004.
Tomakethecaseforflexibleindigeneity,weshouldexaminecontestedassumptionsaboutliberaldemocracy,congruencebetweenpolity andculture,andindividualrightsinBotswanaclosely.Althoughthe rhetoricclearlyemphasizesdemocracyasanindividualandcivicright, therealityisonethatseekstobridgeindividualandgrouprights,civic
“Ever-DiminishingCircles”:TheParadoxesofBelonginginBotswana 311
and cultural citizenship, thereby making Botswana democracy far morecomplexthanisoftenacknowledgedinliberalterms(Comaroff 1978;ComaroffandRoberts1981;HolmandMolutsi1989;Kerr2000; Nyamnjoh2003;Schapera1994[1938]:53–88;Werbner2004).Although legalprovisionsmightpromiseciviccitizenshiptoallinprinciple,in practiceinequalitiesprevailamongindividualsandgroups,especially alongrigidlinesofpoliticallyconstructedindigeneity.Beingindigenous thusbecomesamatterofdegreeandpowerrelations,therebymaking somelessBatswanathanothers,evenastheyarearmedwiththesame tokenOmang(IdentityCard)andinspiredorprotectedinprincipleby thesameconstitution. Inthepast(andstillverymuchtodayincertaincircles),Tswanafor example,havetovariousdegreesclaimedforthemselvesthestatusof landlords,makingotherstenants,whohaveearnedrecognitionand entitlementsovertime.Itmustbenoted,however,thatmuchhasbeen donetoliberalizelandpoliciestoempowertheindividual(regardless ofethnicorigin)more.Electedlandboardsnowhaveauthorityover thelandin“tribal”territories.Understatelawacitizenmayclaimand hold land from a land board anywhere in the country, but the past “tribal”order,withsubjectsholdinglandunderchiefs,stillhasahold ineverydayattitudesandinthepopularimagination(Werbner2004: 109–130),asnotedofMogoditshaneandTlokweng.Legalpluralismmay provecomplicated,andinpracticebeingabletogetwhatoneisofficially entitledisnotalwayseasy.AsthesquatterprobleminMogoditshane demonstrates (Nyamnjoh 2002b: 762–763), in times of crisis, when survivalorcomfortcouldimplysacrificingtheinterestsofsome,there is a transformation in the politics of indigeneity, one that helps to determinewhoseinterestsaretobesacrificedfirstandwhoseprotected, regardlessofprovisionsforciviccitizenship. Usingmultipartyelectionsandotherstandardindicators,onecould makeaconvincingcaseforthesuccessfulinstitutionalizationofliberal democracyandbureaucraticmodernisminBotswana.Thecountry,in fact,isoftencitedasarareexampleofafunctioningliberalmultiparty democracyinAfrica(HolmandMolutsi1989,1992;Molomo2000), even though its ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) has held powercontinuouslysinceindependencein1966.Thereislittledoubt that liberal democracy in Botswana has contributed greatly to the questioningofthecustomarypatriarchythathastendedtoallowfor recognitionofdescentexclusivelythroughthemaleline.Noristhere doubtabouthowmuchthepositionofwomenhasbeenenhancedby women’smovements(Dow1995;Emang1994;Selolwane1997,1998).
312
Francis B. Nyamnjoh
Asforethnicdifferencesandovertconflicts,thesewerelargelymaskedor rechanneleduntilthe1980s,asthestatesoughttonegotiateconviviality by emphasizing consensus and unity. The prevalent Eurocentric rhetoriconnation-buildingdemandedacongruencebetweenpolity andculturethattendedtobeblindly,deafly,andrigidlyprescriptive aboutnationalityandindigeneity. However,acloserlookatBotswanarevealsaliberaldemocracynotas uncontestedasisoftenclaimed.KennethGoodarguesthatover35years ofmultipartypoliticshasresultedinlittlemorethan“elitedemocracy” (1999a; 2002), and a booming economy has not necessarily yielded betteropportunitiesandhigherstandardsoflivingforthemassesin general, and the destitute Basarwa–Khoesan–Bushman minority in particular(1999b).Itisobviousthatstructuresalonecannotprovide theeconomicwell-beingandstrategicmobilizationneededtoguarantee civicrightsbeyondrhetoricandhierarchies.Democracy,likeindigeneity, is an unending project, an aspiration subject to renegotiation with changingcircumstances,growingandcompetingclaimsbyindividuals andgroups(Nyamnjoh2005:1–39). WhetherornotinthepastBotswanaactuallyenjoyedanationalconsensus,freeofethnictensions,thatisnotthecasenow.Long-standing assumptions of citizenship and nationhood are being questioned in ways very similar to what has been observed elsewhere in Africa duringthiseraofacceleratedglobalization(Akindès2004;Alubo2004; Bayartetal.2001;GeschiereandNyamnjoh1998,2000;Halisietal. 1998; Harnischfeger 2004; International Crisis Group [ICG] 2004; Mamdani2001;Nnoli1998).MinoritiesinBotswanaareemploying avarietyofmethodstoseekbetter“politicalrepresentation,material entitlements,andculturalrecognition”forthemselvesasgroups(Solway 2002).Recently,thefocushasbeentheprovisionsofsections77,78, and79ofBotswana’sconstitution,criticizedbyminority“tribes”for mentioningonlytheeightprincipalTswana“tribes,”arguingthatsuch discriminationiscontrarytothespiritofdemocracy,asitassumesa rigidhierarchyofindigeneitythatiscountertotheidealofequality of citizenship (Mazonde 2002; Selolwane 2000: 13; Werbner 2002a, 2002b,2004).TheBalopiCommissionappointedtoinvestigateonthe discriminatory articles of the constitution made public its report in March 2001 (Republic of Botswana 2000: 93–110). The commission containedbothradicalandconservativeelements,butendorsement ofanyofitsmoredramaticrecommendationswasmorelikelytobe hailedbyminoritygroupsthanbyTswanawithvestedinterestsinthe statusquo.
“Ever-DiminishingCircles”:TheParadoxesofBelonginginBotswana 313
Unsurprisingly,aninitialgovernmentdraftwhitepaperinformed by the Balopi Commission Report met with approbation from the minority “tribes” and resistance from the Tswana majority. The situationpushedPresidentMogae,himselffromaminority“tribe”— Batalaote,toembarkonanationwide“explanationtour”ofdifferent kgotla. The initial white paper was criticized by the major “tribes,” whobelieveditmighterodechieftaincyinBotswanabyemphasizing territorialityoverbirthright,andvieweditasdividingthenationby “placatingminoritytribestothedetrimentoftherightsoftribesthat arementionedintheBotswanaConstitution.”2Especiallyproblematic forthemajor“tribes”wastheamendmentofcertainsectionsofthe constitution,andmembershipoftheHouseofChiefs.Onthelatter, thedraftwhitepaperhadarguedthat,“itmakessensetoremovethe ex-officio status in the membership of the House and subject each memberoftheHousetoaprocessofdesignationbymorafe[tribe]. Thesameindividualmayberedesignatedforanothertermifmorafeso wishes.”Indraftingthewhitepaper,acentralconcernwastoensure that“territorialityratherthanactualorperceivedmembershipofatribal orethnicgroupshouldformthefundamentalbasisforrepresentation intheHouseofChiefs.”Sections77,78,and79oftheconstitution were to be replaced with new sections “cast in terms calculated to ensurethatno—‘reasonable’—interpretationcanbemadethatthey discriminateagainstanycitizenortribeinBotswana.”Thedraftwhite paperalsoendorsedcreatingnewregionalconstituencies,“whichare neutralandbearnotribalorethnicsoundingnames.”Regionswere tohaveelectoralcollegesofHeadmenofRecorduptoHeadofTribal Administration to designated members, and each region was to be entitledtoonememberoftheHouse.ThePresidentwouldappoint threespecialmembers,“forthepurposeofinjectingspecialskillsand obtainingabalanceinrepresentation.” However,underpressurefromthemajor(Tswana)“tribes,”President Mogaereportedly“backtracked”onsomekeyaspectsofthedraftwhite papersuchasmoreequalrepresentationintheHouseofChiefsand changeofnamesofsomeregions.Heappointedapaneltoredraftthe relevantsectionsintimeforsubmissiontoparliament.Ina“warof words”meetingwithBangwato(theleadingTswana“tribe”)inSerowe, thePresidentwastold,amongotherthings:“Itisofcoursefairthat some[minor]tribesshouldberepresentedattheHouseofChiefs,but theirchiefsshouldstilltakeordersfromSediegengKgamane[acting paramountchiefofBangwato].Wedonotwantchiefswhowilldisobey theparamountchiefandevenopposehimwhilethere[intheHouse
314
Francis B. Nyamnjoh
ofChiefs].”3Inhisretractionstatement,PresidentMogaestressedthat asademocracy,itwasonlyproperforhisgovernmenttodraft“the whitepaperingoodfaithwiththeintentionoftellingthenationwhat weasgovernmentthoughtwasthebestwaytoimplementthemotion passedbyparliament.”4Therevisedwhitepaper,whichreintroduced exofficioas“permanent”membersandraisedthenumberfromeight to12andthatincreasedthetotalmembershipoftheHouseto35,was finally adopted by parliament in May 2002. The four additional ex officiomembersweretobechiefsfromthedistrictsofChobe,Gantsi, North East, and Kgalagadi, elevated to paramount status, while the traditionaleightfromtheTswana“tribes”weremaintained.5 The adopted revised white paper was rejected by most minority “tribes,” some of whom claimed the changes were “cosmetic” and accusedthegovernmentofhavingsuccumbedtopressurefromTswana “tribes.” Petitioning President Mogae, a coalition of minority elite mostly prominent academics in Gaborone, argued the revised and adoptedwhitepaperhadmerelyentrenchedTswanadominationover othertribesbytranslatingfromEnglishintoSetswanawordssuchas “House of Chiefs” [Ntlo Ya Dikgosi] and “Chief” [Kgosi], oblivious ofthefactthatminority“tribes”havedifferentappellationsforthe samerealities(e.g.,“chief”:SheforBakalanga,ShikatiforBayei).The petitionaccusedthegovernmentofbetrayingitsoriginalintentionto movefromethnicitytoterritorialityasabasisforrepresentation,by yieldingtoTswanapressuretomaintainprocessesofrepresentation tiedtobirth.“WhiletheTswanachiefswillparticipateonthebasisof theirbirthrightaschiefsoftheirtribes,thenon-Tswanagroupswillbe electedtotheHouseassub-chiefs,thatis,ofaninferiorstatus.”Onthe contrary,“territorialityasabasisofrepresentationisonlyapplicable to the non-Tswana-speaking tribes” as “their dominant ethnicities remainunrecognised,”evenforthefourregions,whichwillhenceforth have the option to elect representatives or paramount chiefs. And what is worse, non-Tswana “tribes” will not even participate in the electionoftheirchiefstotheNtloYaDikgosi,becausethechiefs“will beelectedbygovernmentemployeesservingassubchiefsandchiefs and by the Minister.” They considered this process “undemocratic asittakesawaythepeople’srightstoparticipateintheselectionof thosewhoshouldrepresentthemintheHouseofChiefs.”Also,while itispossibleforhomogenousTswanaspeakingregionstohavemore thanoneparamountchief(e.g.,BaleteandBatlokwaforthesoutheast district,andBarolongandBangwaketseforthesoutherndistrict),this wasnotpossibleforotherregionssharedbyTswanaandothertribes
“Ever-DiminishingCircles”:TheParadoxesofBelonginginBotswana 315
(e.g., Tawana and Bayei of the northwest district), a situation that spokeofahierarchyofethnicgroups,indigeneityandultimatelyof citizenship. Thepetitionalsocalledfor“therepealoftribalisticnamesoflandboards,whichpromotetheentrenchmentofTswanadominationover therestofthetribes,”andinsistedthattheso-calledlackoflandof theminoritiesmustnot“standinthewayoftherecognitionofour paramountchiefs,aswethetribeshaveandliveonourownland.”6 Clearly, they argued, “the discrimination complained of has not beenaddressed,”as“TheWhitepaperfailstomakeaconstitutional commitmenttothelibertyandrecognitionof,andthedevelopment and preservation of the languages and cultures of the non-Tswana speakingtribesinthecountry.”Instead,ithasentrenchedTswanadom; but“theTswanaspeakerswillnotenjoytheirsuperiorityattheexpense ofourjusticeunderdiscriminatorylaws.”7Othercriticsclaimedthe revisedwhitepaperhadleftunresolvedthefundamentalissueoftribal inequality,insteadbringthings“backtosquareone,”therebymakingit difficultfortheminoritytribesto“trustagovernmentlikethisone.”8 Werbner(2002c;2004:86–108)situatesthesignificanceofthispetition notonlyinitscontent,butalsoasalandmarkinalliancepolitics.The petitiondemonstrates,aswell,thecontestednatureofdemocracyand nation-building,andassumptionsofindigeneitythathaveinformed andchallengedtheseprocessesinBotswana. AlthougheveryBotswananational(sing.,Motswana;pl.,Batswana) canlegallyclaimtobeaciviccitizenoranethniccitizen,some,such asBaKalanga,areperceivedincertainTswanacirclesaslessauthentic citizens.Indeed,theyarepresentedashavingmoreincommonwith “totaloutsiders,”MakwerekwerefromZimbabweandfurthernorth.The termMakwerekwereisgenerallyemployedinaderogatorymannertorefer toAfricanimmigrantsfromcountriessufferingeconomicdownturns. Stereotypicallythemoredarkskinnedalocalis,themorelikelysheor heistopassforMakwerekwere,especiallyifsheorheisnotfluentin Setswana(Nyamnjoh2006:chs.1and2).BaKalanga,whotendtobe moredarkskinnedthantherest,whosearticulationofSetswanaisless fluent,arealsomoreatriskofbeinglabeledMakwerekwere,athaving theirindigeneityputtoquestion.Ingeneral,the“le-/ma-”(sing.,pl., respectively)prefixinSetswanausuallydesignatessomeoneasforeign, differentoroutsidethecommunity,andisoftenemployedtoreferto allotherswhomTswanaconsiderbeneaththem.Itisnotusedjustfor ethnicgroupsbutforanygrouporprofessionthatseemstobesetapart fromaveragefolks(Volz2003).
316
Francis B. Nyamnjoh
ThefactthatBaKalangaarerelativelymoresuccessfulineducationand business,andincreatingcosmopolitanlinkswithforeigners(Selolwane 2000; Werbner 2002b, 2004: 63–85), only makes their indigeneity moreproblematictotheirTswana“hosts,”whodonothesitatetotalk derogatorilyof“MaKalaka”insteadoftheimpliedtribalequalityand familiarityintheuseof“BaKalanga.”AsSelolwaneobserves,theearly accesstoeducationbyBaKalanga“gavethemcertainadvantagesthat theotherethnicminoritiesdidnotinitiallyhave.”Forinstance,not onlyhavethey,inrealterms,“enjoyedrepresentationassubstantive as that of the larger ethnic Tswana groups,” their share of seats in parliamentincreasedfrom11percentin1965to17percentin2000, makingthemoneofthreegroupswiththelargestshareofmembers inparliamentandgovernment.Thisnotwithstanding,theTswanain general,andtheBaNgwatoinparticular,continuetodominateelected officeandrepresentationinparliament,eveninconstituencieswhere theiroverlordshiphasended,andtohavethelion’sshareofcabinet positions (70 percent average) in government (Selolwane 2004: 24– 27). The most underrepresented of all ethnic minorities are the Ma(Ba)Sarwa–Bushman(Khoesan).Althoughthemostindigenousinterms oflongevityintheterritory,theyaredismissedaslessrightfulownersof thecountrybecauseoftheir“inability”toindigenize(domesticate)the landthroughagricultureandpermanentsettlements.Bygivingpriority torigidagropastoralandresidentialusagesoflandaskeydeterminants ofthedefinitionoflandrights,policymakershavedeniedBaSarwathe righttolandwheretheyhavehunted,gathered,andkeptsomelivestock for centuries if not millennia (Madzwamuse 1998; Wilmsen 1989: 158–194). This denies the BaSarwa the right to determine who they are,wheretheyare,howtheyareandwhytheyare,therebystunting boththeirethnicandciviccitizenships(Saugestad2001).Theyarethus renderedinvisibleandinarticulatebyrigidhierarchiesofindigeneity designedandimposedbythosewithambitionsofdominance. SomefrustratedBaSarwahavetakenthegovernmentofBotswanato courtoveritsclaimofownershipoftheCentralKgalagadiGameReserve, createdin1961byacolonialadministrationwithmixedversionsof whattheintentionwas.Oneversionisthatthereservewasintended to“settle”the“nomadic”BaSarwa,whoselandhadbeenencroached bybigcattleranches,intoaparceloflandthatcouldkeepthemfrom “trespassing” in the now privately owned encircling land. Another versionisthatthereservewascreatedtopreservethehunter-gatherer livelihoodoftheBaSarwa.Formanyyears,thelivesofthepeoplesin
“Ever-DiminishingCircles”:TheParadoxesofBelonginginBotswana 317
thereservehavebecomemoresedentary,andnowthegovernmentis usingtheiradaptabilityasacaseagainsttheircontinuedoccupationof thereserve.Theyhave,since2002,beenforcedtorelocatejustoutside thereserve.Withoutsignificanteducatedeliteoftheirown,BaSarwa opposedtorelocationhavedrawnoninternationalsupporttorekindle their dreams of indigeneity and entitlements as “the first people of theKalahari.”However,theyhavereceivedlittlesympathyfromother ethnicgroupsinBotswana,despitethefactthatalloftheseothergroups, arepreoccupiedwiththeirownpoliticsofrecognition,representation, andentitlements.OtherBatswanaarequicktopointtothenomadic livelihoodoftheBaSarwaasthecauseoftheirpoverty,ratherthana measureoftheirindigeneity. One consequence of the stereotypes and attitudes of superiority displayedbyotherBatswanaisthattheBaSarwahaveneverbeendirectly representedinparliamentnorinmostotherpublicstructures.They have had minimal access and representation and have been treated insteadasbarbariansatthefringes,capableoflittlemorethanservitude andsubjection.Inthisway,theyepitomizeinapostcolonialsetting whatAfricansas“natives”or“indigenes”collectivelyrepresentedto thecivilizingmissionofthecolonialgaze.TheBaKalanga,bycontrast, haveregainedsomelostrecognitionthroughciviccitizenshipthanks to their modern education and cosmopolitan connections. The BaSarwa“positioncontrastssharplywiththesituationofotherethnic groupswho,thoughexcludedovertime,havebeenabletoestablisha parliamentarypresence.”Onthecontrary,withtheexceptionofthe BaLete, “all ethnic Tswana groups have consistently enjoyed some representationformostoftheperiodsincetheadventofParliament” in 1965 (Selolwane 2004: 21–22), thereby circumscribing structural powertopoliticallyconstructednotionsofindigeneitythathavelittle bearing with the history of mobility and effective presence on the territorythatisBotswana. Thefactthatthenameofthecountryanditscitizensderivesdirectly fromthedominantTswanatribe,isrevealinginitself.Theeliteofan ethnicminoritysuchasBaKalanga,althoughperceivedtobedominant economicallyandinthestatebureaucracy,seemconvincedtheseother indicatorsaremoresignificantsignsofsuccessandbelonging(Werbner 2004).Thisexplains,inpart,whytheBaKalangaandotherelitemembers ofsomeminorityethnicgroups,optedforanethnicsubmissiontothe Balopi Commission, with some arguing for a change of name from “Botswana” to “Kgalagadi” to honor the very first occupants of the territory.9AsAndrewMurraynotes,thedefinitionofthe“nation”has
318
Francis B. Nyamnjoh
been “manipulated to provide Tswana culture with a monopoly of politicallegitimacyinTswanadom’snewguise,theRepublicofBotswana” (Murray1990:35).AlthoughallmaybeBatswana(indigenes)inrelation topresent-dayimmigrantsandtotheoutsideworld,noteveryoneisa Motswanaintermsofethnic(cultural)identityandnationalpolitics, even though they may have a longer ancestry in the territory than thosenowpolicingindigeneity.Somehavemaintainedculturaland politicaladvantagesandprivilegesinheritedfromthecolonialera,and evengreatlymagnifiedinthepostcolonialpoliticsofnation-building (Comaroff and Comaroff 1997; Parsons et al. 1995; Ramsay et al. 1996; Volz 2003). Others are yet to enjoy the cultural and political citizenshiptheybelievetheydeserveinademocracy,evenwhenthat samedemocracyhasfavoredthemeconomicallyandprofessionally,as islargelythecasewiththeBaKalangaelite(Selolwane2004;Werbner 2004).Indigeneityisamatterofpoweranddegree,evenfornationals ofthesamecountry,astheyareselectivelydrawnontoclaimliberation ortojustifyexclusion.
ChallengingDemocracy,NegotiatingIndigeneity Postindependencenation-buildinghasmeanttheprivilegingoflargescaleoversmall-scaleindigeneity.Thequestforcongruencebetween culture and polity has resulted in the undue essentialization and oppression or celebration of identities while overlooking ongoing contradictions,contestations,andclamorsforrightsandentitlements. However,asthepursuitofnation-buildingincreasinglyfailstojustify thesacrificesmadeinitsname,individualsandcommunitiesbecome morevociferousabouttheinequalitiessuchsacrificeshaveengendered orexacerbated.Theupsurgeintensionaroundethnicbelongingand accesstopowerandresourcesinBotswana,speaksforthecontinuous relevanceofgroupandculturalsolidaritiesinthefaceoftheuncertainties of neoliberal possibilities. “Decentralised despotism” constructed or appropriatedbythecolonialstate(Mamdani1996)isbeingdrawnonin postcolonialBotswanaeithertofightagainstinheriteddiscriminationor toprotectaheritageofprivileges.Batswana,eventhemostmodernized, seem reluctant to be identified solely as nationals. Few of them, it seems,aretoocosmopolitantobeindigenousaswell:itisfascinating towatchelitesdistributetheirtimebetweentheirmodernworkplaces inthecitiesontheonehand,andtheirhomevillagesandcattleposts inthelandsontheotherhand(Werbner2002b,2004:63–85).That culturalcitizenshipremainsofutmostimportancetoBatswanaelite,
“Ever-DiminishingCircles”:TheParadoxesofBelonginginBotswana 319
regardlessoftheirsubscriptiontothe“modern”civicregimeofrights, is further evidenced by the widespread reluctance to bargain away their indigeneities. Despite over 500 years of interethnic marriages and relationships, the patriarchal customs of cultural communities have ensured the illusion of ethnic purity by stubbornly adhering totraditionsofdescentdefinedsonarrowly.Thisjuridicopoliticalor structuralrigidityemphasizesculturalessentialismdespitearealityof flexibleindigeneity. Liberaldemocracy,especiallyasexportedtoAfrica,hasnotbeentoo keentoacknowledgeandprovideadequatelyforsuchsocialnuances initsarticulationofcitizenship(Nyamnjoh2005).Yetinpartsofthe continent not only does indigeneity matter, struggles for cultural rightsarerifeandincludecasesofdisenfranchisedmajoritiesseeking redressagainstastatecontrolledbyaminority.Thus,forexample,in SouthAfricathewhiteminoritystilleffectivelycontrolsvirtuallyall “modern”culturalindustriesandinstitutionsofculturalreproduction. Thefactisthatliberaldemocracypromisespolitical,economic,and culturalenrichmentforall,butisabletoprovideonlyforafew,and in uncertain ways. Its rhetoric of opening up, of cosmopolitanism and abundance, is sharply contradicted by the structural reality of closures, rigid indigeneity, and want for most of its disciples within andbetweenculturalcommunitiesandstates.Anemphasisonwinnertakes-allpoliticshastendedtodownplaytherealityofmigratoryflows that challenge rigid claims of indigeneity, while blindly yielding to thedictatesofthosepowerfulenoughtooverrideeventhelegitimate claimsofrelativelymore. InJuly2000,MmegiMonitorpublishedanopenletterbya“Concerned Motswana Citizen” accusing “Makalaka” (BaKalanga) of being from Zimbabwe,ofusingtheirtribalismtomonopolizeeconomicopportunitiesandpublicservicejobs,andofbeinghungryforpowerover“real Batswana.”10Althoughhistoricallymoreindigenoustotheterritory, BaKalanga,accordingtothe“concernedMostwana”wereconsidered as not quite belonging, as being less indigenous than their Tswana counterparts,“realBatswana.”Althoughthisletterpointedtoevidence ofcracksinthenationalconsensus,whichsupposedlyhadkeptBotswana inonepiecefor34years,MmegiMonitor’spublicationofitwascriticized incertaincirclesasdivisiveandxenophobic.Twomonthslater,another opinion piece was featured in the Mmegi, accusing BaKalanga of hypocrisybyscreamingoppressionandconstitutionaldiscrimination, while“inthingsthatmattermosttoindividual’sdailylivestheyarethe mostintolerable,tribalisticandfrustratinggroupofpeople.”BaKalanga,
320
Francis B. Nyamnjoh
accordingtothisopinion,werefrustratingtheambitionsofthevery Tswanawhomtheyaccusedofdominance,bymonopolizingpositions inthestatebureaucracy,andorganizingclandestinenocturnalmeetings tofrustratethemevenfurther(Nyamnjoh2002b). Theseconcernsinthemediawereprecededbytheconferenceon ChallengingMinorities,DifferenceandTribalCitizenshipinBotswana inMay2000,atwhichBaKalangawerethemostprominentandthemost vocalminority.Asconferenceorganizerandlong-standingresearcher ontheBaKalanga,RichardWerbnerdevotedhiskeynoteaddresstohow BaKalangaeliteemploycosmopolitanethnicityasacopingmechanism tofosterinterethnicpartnershipswithoutsacrificingdifferenceentirely (Werbner2002b,2004:63–85).By“cosmopolitanethnicity,”Werbner meansasortofethnicindigeneitythatisatonceinwardandoutward looking,andthat“buildsinter-ethnicalliancesfromintra-ethnicones, andconstructsdifferencewhiletranscendingit.”Beingcosmopolitan, inthissense,“doesnotmeanturningone’sbackonthecountryside, abandoning rural allies or rejecting ethnic bonds” (Werbner 2002a: 731–732).Theconferencereportedly“raisedastorm”inTswanacircles, andnewspaperssingledoutapaperbyAndersonChebanne(aKalanga senior lecturer and vice dean at the University of Botswana), which pointedoutthatlanguagerightswerehumanrights,andlamentedthe factthatinacountryofatleast21indigenouslanguages,“onlyone language,Setswana,hasastatuswhichhasmadeittobenefitfromthe developmentsofthelastthreedecades”(Chebanne2002:47).11 Overtime,especiallysincethearrivaloftheTswanagroupsapproximately500yearsaftertheKalangaandtheKgalagadihadsettledin theterritory,“aprocessofsocialhierarchizationof...languageshas emerged in tandem with the social ranking of the speakers of these languages,” to the effect that today all Khoesan languages, despite having the longest roots in the territory, “occupy the lowest social ranking nationally as well as within district communities,” thanks mainlytothesystematicdisplacement,subjugationandabsorptionof KhoesanbysuccessivegroupsofBantumigrants.Tswanawereparticularlycentralizingandsubjugating,astheysoughtdomesticationof the territory and competing claims of indigeneity (Selolwane 2004: 7–10).Setswana,althoughinitiallyaminoritylanguage,hasoverthree centuriesrisentomajoritystatus;today,itisBotswana’smostdominant language,withatleast70percentofthepopulationidentifyingitasthe primarylanguageandanother20percentasthesecondarylanguage. Setswana is followed by Ikalanga, which is identified by 11 percent asaprimaryandsecondarylanguage(Selolwane2004:4–9).Despite
“Ever-DiminishingCircles”:TheParadoxesofBelonginginBotswana 321
being relatively the most well-placed minority group politically and economically, BaKalanga are particularly aggrieved having both lost theirlandtoaBritishcompanyincolonialtimesandenduredcultural andpoliticalsubjugationbyBaNgwato,whomtheBritishhadfavored (Selolwane 2004: 10). For being very vociferous about the need for restitutionandculturalrecognition,BaKalanga,althoughnot“theonly ethnicgroupwhocouldclaimtohavesacrificedtheirlanguageand cultureforthegreateridealofnation-building,”havebeensingledout inparticularforattacksbyotherswhoperceivethemtohavebenefited disproportionatelyinmaterialandeconomicterms(Selolwane2000: 17–18). ThisisapointsharedbyMethaetsileLeepile(formereditorofMmegi, proprietorofanewSetswanalanguagenewspaper—Mokgosi(theEcho), andastaunchTswanacriticof“doublespeakamongBakalangaintellectualspokespersons”).LeepileconsiderstheBaKalangaeliteasnot onlyhavingthelion’sshareofopportunities,butofbeingdishonest abouttheirpowerandinfluence.Thiselite,contrarytowhattheyclaim, “arenotworkingfornationalunity,peaceanddevelopment.”Tohim, “theyareinfactinapositiontodictatethetempoanddirectionof changeandtomakestrategicinterventionswhenitsuitstheirpeculiar interests.”Inthisregard,although“theKalangaelitehasalwaysbeen resentfulofotherpeople,”ofrecent“theyhaveattemptedtoembrace other ethnic groups in their fight against what they perceive to be majoritarian over-rule.” BaKalanga rhetoric of marginalization, he argues,concealsthefactoftheirdominanceandelitestatusinvarious spheresoflifeinBotswana.Hesinglesouttheethniccompositionof thepublicserviceandusesthejudiciary(inwhichallegedly7ofthe13 BatswanajudgesareKalangaandonlytwocomefrom“theso-called principaleightmerafhe[tribes])”toshowhowdominantBaKalanga reallyare.TheBaKalangastruggle,likethatoftheBayeispearheaded byLydiaNyathiRamahobo(Nyati-Ramahobo2002)12isnotsomuch “forlinguisticandculturalrecognition,butthequestforpowerand controloftheresourcesofthiscountrybythosepeoplewhoalready possessorhaveameasureofcontrolofthesethings.”13Ingeneral,he arguesthat“theBakalangaareverywellplacedinpositionsofpower and influence” and that “It is the Bakalanga who are marginalizing otherethnicgroupsnottheotherwayround”(Leepilen.d.). BatshaniNdabaiseditorofthe SundayTribune,apaperhestarted publishingonApril16,2000.14HeisKalangaandhasservedaspresident oftheSocietyforthePromotionofIkalangaLanguage(SPIL).Hewasa signatorybothtoaBaKalangasubmissiontotheBalopiCommission,
322
Francis B. Nyamnjoh
andalsotoanotherdocumenttoPresidentMogaebysomeBaKalanga challengingtheconclusionsoftheBalopiCommission.15Askedtosituate growinganti-Kalangasentimentsincertaincircles,Ndabapointedto several factors that include “a longstanding war between BaKalanga andSetswanaspeakingstock.”Accordingtohim,BaKalangahavenever forgottennorforgiventhehumiliationofachiefoftheirs—SheJohn MadawoNswazwi—bychiefTshekediKhamaoftheBaNgwato,“because he had refused to be made a second-class citizen in his country of birth.”16Asecondfactoristhefactthat“BaKalangaarehardworking.” AccordingtoNdaba,BaKalangahaveinvestedalotinschooling,which explainsmuchoftheirachievementsunderthepostcolonialstate.In hiswords,unliketheirTswanacounterpartswhohadlandandcattleto tend,BaKalanga“arepeoplewhohavehadnoland,noopportunityto triballandoftheirown,whereyoucouldlookafteryourfather’scattle asaheritage;andtheonlywayyoucouldsurviveinfuturewastoget aneducationandgetajob.” Havinginvestedineducationitishardlysurprising,Ndabaargues,that BaKalangashouldqualifyforvariouslevelsofexpertiseas“civic”citizens intheBotswananation-state,andasciviccitizens,takeadvantageof theauthorityaccordedlandboardsoverthelandin“tribal”territories, thatmakesitpossibleforallcitizenstoclaimandholdlandfromaland boardanywhereinthecountry.“AlotofBaKalangaarenowoccupying fairlyinfluentialpositions,notbecausetheyareBaKalangabutbecause ofmerit,qualification,experienceandthosearesomeofthebasisfor appointingpeopletopositionsofresponsibility”(seealsoWerbner2004: 146–187;Selolwane2004)Afinalfactor,accordingtoNdaba,isthefact that:“BaKalanga,unlikeotherso-calledminoritygroups,haverefused toberuledoverandsubjugatedtoinferioritystatusbyotherso-called majority,andthereforethatiswhywearehated.Wehaverefused.” From this and other accounts (cf. Mazonde 2002; Selolwane 2004; Werbner2004),itisevidentthatwhiletheBaKalangahave,relatively speaking,benefitedsignificantlyfromtheirciviccitizenship,theysorely missthebenefitsofethniccitizenship,and,as“reasonableradicals” (Werbner2004)theirwell-educated,well-connected,andwell-placed elite are determined to do all it takes to affirm and legitimate their indigeneity. AlthoughBaKalangamayhaveaninfluentialelite,othernon-Tswana minority groups (with perhaps the exception of the Wayeyi—NyatiRamahobo 2002), do not enjoy the same quality elite, and are thus easilymaneuveredandmanipulatedbythestate,ontheonehand,and externalagents,ontheotherhand.TheBaSarwa–Khoesanareagood
“Ever-DiminishingCircles”:TheParadoxesofBelonginginBotswana 323
caseinpoint,astheymustdependlargelyonforcesexternaltotheir communities(e.g.,SurvivalInternational,Ditshwanelo,massmedia, anthropologists, and other human rights advocacy groups)—who, sometimesworsethanthestate,areofteninsensitivetothenuances andcreativedynamismoflocalidentityconfigurations—tomaketheir caseforrecognitionandrepresentationasaculturalcommunitywith arighttoindigeneity.
FlexibleIndigeneity Itshouldbeevidentthatindigeneityisaprocesssubjecttorenegotiation with rising expectations by individuals and groups. For one thing, political,cultural,historical,and,aboveall,economicrealities,determine whatformandmeaningthearticulationofindigeneityassumesinany givencontext.Thepossessionofrightsissomethingindividualsand communitiesmaybeentitledto,butwhoactuallyenjoysrightsdoes not merely depend on what individuals and groups may wish, are entitled to under the law, by birth, or in a universal declaration of onekindoranother.IncreasinglyandquiteparadoxicallyinBotswana andelsewhere,globalizationandtheacceleratedflowofcapital,goods, electronic information and migration it occasions, is exacerbating insecurities,uncertaintiesandanxieties,bringingaboutanevengreater obsessionwithautochthony,andthebuildingorreactualizationofrigid indigeneity(GeschiereandNyamnjoh2000;ComaroffandComaroff 2000). Productivelyaddressingsurginguncertaintiesandanxietiesishardly tobeaccomplishedthroughanarrowandabstractdefinitionofindigeneitymuchlessinanypoliticsofexclusionanddifferencewithinand betweengroups,indigenousorforeign.Theanswerisnotsimplytoshift fromastate-basedtoamoreindividual-baseduniversalconceptionof citizenship,assomehavesuggested(Basok2004),becausethisfailsto providefortherightsofcollectivities,howeverconstrued.Theanswer totheimpermanenceofpresent-dayachievements,liesinincorporating “outsiders” without stifling difference, and in the building of new partnershipsacrossthosedifferences.Theanswer,inotherwords,isin acosmopolitanlifeinformedbyallegiancestoculturalmeaningsdrawn fromdifferentsourcesintherichrepertoireofmultiple,kaleidoscopic encountersbyindividualsandgroups(Waldon1995;Werbner2002b, 2004:63–85).Englundtalksofacosmopolitanisminformedbyrelationshipsthatstress“adeterritorializedmodeofbelonging,”thatmakesit possibletofeelathomeawayfromhome(Englund2004a).
324
Francis B. Nyamnjoh
PresidentMogaeofBotswanasharesthisvision:“Iexpectallpeople— menandwomen—oftriballyorregionallyorraciallymixedparentage tobethegluethatholdsthisnationtogether.”17Ethniccommunities inBotswanahavehardlyifever,beenofhighlyexclusivemembership. Withineachso-calledtribe,aremultiplicitiesof“tribalidentities,”often expressingtheirvarietybythedifferentmythsoforiginandsymbolic orderstheyidentifythemselvesby(Selolwane2004).Eventhewards (makgotla)orclustersofhomesteadsinavillagesharingacommon root are many and diverse, each with a family tree that hardly ever pointstoacommonancestrybetweenallthatcanunitesolidlythe entirevillage.Thisspeaksofapatchworkandmultiplelayersthatthe rigidindigeneityimplicitinthedistinctionbetween“ethniccitizens” and“ethnicsettlers”hides,andappealstoasortofflexibleindigeneity, whichBotswanacanattesttohistorically(Murray1990:34).Indeed, Africancommunitiesarehistoricallyrenownedfortheirflexibilityof mobilityandindigeneity(deBruijnetal.2001;MacGraffey1995),a realityonlyenhancedbythearbitrarynatureofcolonialboundaries, ontheonehand,andamainstreamphilosophyoflife,agency,and responsibilitythatprivilegespeopleoverprofit,ontheotherhand.The history of Botswana demonstrates such flexible modes of belonging thatmakeitdifficulttoclaimidentitiesinessentialistterms.Overthe years,therealsociologyandanthropologyofBotswana’sconstituent communitiessuggestfarmorecontradiction,contestation,negotiation, interdependenceandconvivialityintheidentitiesofordinarypeople andcommunitiesthanisoftenacknowledgedorprovidedforpolitically, culturallyorinscholarship. ThetendencyespeciallyinAfricahasbeenforscholarstodeemphasize small-scale“ethnic”infavoroflarge-scale“civic”citizenship,whose juridicopoliticalbasisisuncriticallyassumedtobemoreinclusivethan the cultural basis of ethnic citizenship (Mamdani 1996, 2000). The mistakehasbeentofocusanalysisalmostexclusivelyoninstitutional andconstitutionalarrangements,therebydownplayingthehierarchies and relationships of inclusion and exclusion informed by race, ethnicity,class,gender,andgeographythatdetermineindigeneityin realterms(Alubo2004;An-Na’im2002;EnglundandNyamnjoh2004; Harnischfeger2004;Nyamnjoh2005).Therehasbeentoomuchfocus on“rightstalk”andits“emancipatoryrhetoric,”andtoolittleattention accordedthecontexts,meanings,andpracticesthatmakeindigeneity possible for some but an aspiration relentlessly deferred for most (Englund2000,2004b).Theconceptofculturalcitizenshiphasactually wonitselfmoredisciplesrecently,notleastfromamongscholars,who
“Ever-DiminishingCircles”:TheParadoxesofBelonginginBotswana 325
arenolongersimplykeenonjuridicopoliticalcitizenshipbutalsoon claiming indigeneity over and beyond the essentialist identities the statehastooffer(Halsteen2004;Nnoli1998;NyamnjohandRowlands 1998;Werbner2004;WerbnerandGaitskell2002). Thehistoryofdifficultyatimplementingrigidnotionsofthe“nationstate,” “indigeneity” and “citizenship” in Africa attests to the gross inadequacyofanarrowandinflexiblejuridicopoliticalregimeofrights andentitlementsinacontextwhereindividualsandcommunitiesare questioning the Western monopoly over “freedom of imagination” and challenging themselves to think of “new forms of the modern community”and“newformsofthemodernstate”(Chatterjee1993: 13).ThechallengeisclearlytohearkentotherealityofAfricansand theircommunitiesatworkinlaboratoriesthatexperimentwithdifferent configurations, as they seek broader, more flexible regimes of indigeneity.Heremeaningfulcultural,political,economicrecognition, andrepresentationcouldbenegotiatedforindividualsandgroupsto counter the ever-diminishing circles of inclusion imposed by race, ethnicity,class,gender,andgeography. Throughout the world civic citizenship is facing hard times, as multitudes clamor for inclusion by challenging the myopia implicit intheconservativejuridicopoliticalrhetoricandpracticesofnationstates(Antrobus2004;Imametal.1997;Kabeer2005;Kerretal.2004; Yuval-DavisandWerbner1999).Justascultural,economic,andsocial citizenshipareasvalidasjuridicopoliticalcitizenship,collective,group orcommunitycitizenshipisasvalidasindividualcitizenship,tobe claimed at every level, from the most small-scale local to the most megascale global level. The emphasis should be on the freedom of individualsandcommunitiestonegotiateinclusion,optoutandopt inwithflexibilityofbelonginginconsonancewiththeirrealitiesas straddlersofakaleidoscopeofidentitymargins. Obviously,suchflexibleindigeneityisincompatiblewiththeprevalent illusion that the nation-state is the only political unit permitted to confer citizenship in the modern world. Neither is it compatible with a regime of rights and entitlements that is narrowly focused on yet another chimera—“the autonomous individual.” Everywhere the price of perpetuating these illusions has been the proliferation of ultranationalism, chauvinism, racism, tribalism, and xenophobia that have consciously denied the fragmented, multinational, and heterogeneous cultural realities of most so-called nation-states. The tendencyhasbeenforindigeneitythusinspiredtoassumethestatureofa giantcompressorof,especially,culturaldifferences.Almosteverywhere,
326
Francis B. Nyamnjoh
thisnarrowmodelhascherishedhierarchiesbasedonrace,ethnicity, class,gender,andgeography,thathavetendedtoimposeonperceived inferiorothersdecisionsmadebythosewhoseethemselvesasmore authenticormoredeservingofcitizenship.Indigeneitythathailsfrom suchacelebrationofinsensitivitiesisclearlynotamodelforafuture ofincreasedmobilityandincreasedclaimsforrights,recognition,and representationbyitsindividualandcollectivevictims.
Notes 1. The fact of writing, printing, and teaching Setswana in schools, has helpedtowardthecrystallizationofastandardizedversion,againstwhichall otherscanbemeasuredasdeviations. 2. TheBotswanaGazette,April2,2002andApril10,2002;seealsoMmegi Monitor,March26,2002. 3. TheMidweekSun,May1,2002;MmegiMonitor,April2,2002. 4. SeetheBotswanaGazette,April10,2002;seealsoMmegiMonitor,March 26,2002. 5. SeetheBotswanaGuardian,May3,2002. 6. TheMidweekSun,May22,2002,“MinoritiesPetitionPresidentMogae.” 7. MmegiMonitor,May21,2002,“MinoritiesPetitionMogae.” 8. Mmegi,May24,2002,“PoliticiansCriticiseMogae.” 9. InterviewwithSecheleSechele,editoroftheMmegi. 10. Mmegi Monitor, July 11–17, 2000, an open letter by a “Concerned MotswanaCitizen.” 11. SeealsoMmegi,June2,2000,on“Minoritiesconferenceraisesastorm.” 12. SeetheBotswanaGuardian,August10,2001,“LeepileForcesTribalismon theTable,”foranexampleofpressrepresentationofLydiaNyathiRamahobo’s position. 13. See the Botswana Gazette, August 29, 2001, for Methaetsile Leepile’s replytoEdwardMaganu,“DealingwiththeEthnicCutworm.” 14. InterviewwithBatshaniNdaba,July30,2001. 15. See the Midweek Sun, July 18, 2001, for “BaKalanga Challenge Balopi Commission”;seealsoWerbner2004:48–62. 16. Formoreonthisversionofhistory,seetheSundayTribune,September 9,2001,for“ClearingCobwebsoffLeepile’smind,”byEricMoseja.Seealso Werbner2004:66–85. 17. SeetheSundayTribune,August12,2001.
“Ever-DiminishingCircles”:TheParadoxesofBelonginginBotswana 327
References Akindès, F. 2004. Les Racines de la crise militaro-politique en Côte d’Ivoire.Dakar:CODESRIA. Alubo, O. 2004. Citizenship and nation-building in Nigeria: New challengesandcontestations.Identity,CultureandPolitics5(1):135– 161. An-Naim,A.A.,ed.2002.Culturaltransformationandhumanrightsin Africa.London:ZedBooks. Antrobus, P. 2004. The global women’s movement: Origins, issues and strategies.London:ZedBooks. Basok, T. 2004. Post-national citizenship, social exclusion and migrantsrights:MexicanseasonalworkersinCanada.CitizenshipStudies 8(1):47–64. Bayart, J.-F., P. Geschiere, and F. Nyamnjoh. 2001. Autochtonie, Démocratie et Citoyenneté en Afrique. Critique Internationale 10: 177–194. Campbell,E.K.,andJ.O.Oucho.2003.Changingattitudestoimmigration andrefugeepolicyinBotswana.SAMPMigrationPolicySeries,28.Cape Town:Idasa. Chatterjee,P.1993.Thenationanditsfragments:Colonialandpostcolonial histories,Princeton.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress. Chebanne,A.2002.Minoritylanguagesandminoritypeoples:Issueson linguistic,culturalandethnicdeathinBotswana.InMinoritiesinthe millennium:PerspectivesfromBotswana,editedbyIsaacN.Mazonde, 47–56.Gaborone:LightBooks. Comaroff,J.L.1978.Rulesandrulers:PoliticalprocessesinaTswana chiefdom.Man(n.s.)13:1–20. Comaroff,J.,andJ.Comaroff.1997.Ofrevelationandrevolution:The dialecticsofmodernityonaSouthAfricanfrontier,vol.2.Chicago: ChicagoUniversityPress. ——.2000.Millennialcapitalismandthecultureofneoliberalism.Public Culture12(2):291–343. Comaroff,J.L.,andS.Roberts.1981.Rulesandprocesses:Thecultural logicofdisputeinanAfricancontext.Chicago:UniversityofChicago Press. de Bruijn, M., R. van Dijk, and D. Foeken, eds. 2001. Mobile Africa: Changing patterns of movement in Africa and beyond. Leiden, the Netherlands:Brill. Dow,U.,ed.1995.Thecitizenshipcase:TheattorneygeneraloftheRepublic of Botswana vs. Unity Dow, court documents, judgements, cases and material.Gaborone:LentswelaLesedi.
328
Francis B. Nyamnjoh
Durham,D.1993.Imagesofculture:BeingHereroinaliberaldemocracy. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago. Emang,Basadi.1994.Thewomen’smanifesto:AsummaryofBotswana women’sissuesanddemands.Gaborone:LentswelaLesedi. Englund,H.2000.Thedeadhandofhumanrights:ContrastingChristianitiesinpost-transitionMalawi.JournalofModernAfricanStudies 38(4):579–603. ——.2004a.CosmopolitanismandtheDevilinMalawi.Ethnos69(3): 293–316. ——.2004b.Towardsacritiqueofrightstalkinnewdemocracies:The caseoflegalaidinMalawi.DiscourseandSociety15(5):527–551. Englund,H.,andF.B.Nyamnjoh,eds.2004.Rightsandthepoliticsof recognitioninAfrica.London:ZedBooks. Fombad,C.M.1999.CurbingcorruptioninAfrica:Somelessonsfrom Botswana’sexperience.InternationalSocialScienceJournal52(160): 241–254. Ferguson,J.1999.Expectationsofmodernity:Mythsandmeaningsofurban life on the Zambian Copperbelt. Berkeley: University of California Press. Garbutt, R. 2006. White “Autochthony.” ACRAWSA e-journal 2 (1): 1–16. Geschiere, P., and F. B. Nyamnjoh. 1998. Witchcraft as an issue in the“politicsofbelonging”:Democratizationandurbanmigrants’ involvementwiththehomevillageAfricanStudiesReview41(3): 69–92. ——.2000.Capitalismandautochthony:Theseesawofmobilityand belonging.PublicCulture12(2):423–452. Good,K.1999a.EnduringelitedemocracyinBotswana.Democratization 6(1):50–66. ——.1999b.ThestateandextremepovertyinBotswana:TheSanand thedestitutes.JournalofModernAfricanStudies27(2). ——.2002. The liberal model and Africa: Elites against Democracy. Basingstoke:Palgrave. Halisi,C.R.D.,P.J.Kaiser,andS.N.Ndegwa,eds.1998.Rethinking citizenshipinAfrica.AfricaToday45:3–4. Halsteen,U.2004.Takingrightstalkseriously:ReflectionsonUgandan politicaldiscourse.InRightsandthepoliticsofrecognitioninAfrica, editedbyH.Englund,andF.B.Nyamnjoh,103–124.London:Zed Books.
“Ever-DiminishingCircles”:TheParadoxesofBelonginginBotswana 329
Harnischfeger, J. 2004. Sharia and control over territory: Conflicts between “settlers” and “indigenes” in Nigeria. African Affairs 103 (412):431–452. Holm,J.D.,andP.Molutsi,eds.1989.DemocracyinBotswana.Gaborone: MacmillanBotswana. ——.1992.State-SocietyrelationsinBotswana:Beginningliberalization. In Governance and politics in Africa, edited by Goran Hyden and MichaelBratton,75–98.Boulder,CO:LynneRienner. Imam,A.,A.Mama,andF.Sow,eds.1997.EngenderingAfricanSocial Sciences.Dakar:CODESRIA. InternationalCrisisGroup(ICG).2004.Côted’Ivoire:Nopeaceinsight. AfricaReport,82,July12,Dakar–Brussels:ICG. Kabeer, N., ed. 2005. Inclusive citizenship: Meanings and expressions. London:ZedBooks. Kerr,D.2000.MediademocracyinBotswana:TheKgotlaasmyth,practice and post-colonial communication paradigm. Paper presented at the International Seminar on the Political Economy of the Media in Southern Africa, University of Natal, Durban, South Africa, April 25–29. Kerr,J.,E.Sprenger,andA.Symington,eds.2004.Thefutureofwomen’s rights:Globalvisionsandstrategies.London:ZedBooks. Leepile, M. n.d. The ethnic composition of the public service: The case of the administration of justice and the attorney general’s chambers. UnpublishedMS. MacGaffey,W.1995.Kongoidentity,1483–1993.SouthAtlanticQuarterly 94(4):1025–1037. Madzwamuse, M. S. 1998. Basarwa and the land issue: Perceptions of landrightsheldbytheBasarwa.B.A.ResearchProject,Departmentof Sociology,FSS,UniversityofBotswana. Mamdani,M.1996.Citizenandsubject:ContemporaryAfricaandthelegacy oflatecolonialism.CapeTown:DavidPhilip. ——.1998.WhendoesasettlerbecomeaNative?Reflectionsofthecolonial rootsofcitizenshipinEquatorialandSouthAfrica,208(n.s.).CapeTown: UniversityofCapeTown ——.2000. Beyond rights talk and culture talk. Cape Town: David Philip. ——.2001.Whenvictimsbecomekillers:Colonialism,nativism,andthe genocideinRwanda.Kampala:FountainPublishers. Maybury-Lewis,D.2005.Definingindigenous.CulturalSurvivalQuarterly 29:1.
330
Francis B. Nyamnjoh
Mazonde, I., ed. 2002. Minorities in the millennium: Perspectives from Botswana.Gaborone:Lightbooks. Mercer, D. 2003. “Citizen Minus”?: Indigenous Australians and the CitizenshipQuestion.CitizenshipStudies7(4):421–445. Molomo,M.G.,guested.2000.Specialissue:“ElectionsandDemocracy inBotswana.”Pula14(4). Murray,A.1990.Peoples’rights:ThecaseofBaYeiSeparatism.Humanand Peoples’RightsProjectMonograph,9.Maseru:NationalUniversity ofLesotho. Nnoli,O.,ed.1998.EthnicconflictsinAfrica.Dakar:CODESRIA. Nyamnjoh,F.B.2002a.“Achildisoneperson’sonlyinthewomb”: Domestication,agencyandsubjectivityintheCamerooniangrassfields.InPostcolonialsubjectivitiesinAfrica,editedbyRichardWerbner, 111–138.London:ZedBooks. ——.2002b. Local attitudes towards citizenship and foreigners in Botswana: An appraisal of recent press stories. Journal of Southern AfricanStudies28(4):755–775. ——.2003.Mightandright:ChieftaincyanddemocracyinCameroon andBotswana.InThedynamicsofpowerandtheruleoflaw:Essayson Africaandbeyond,editedbyW.vanBinsbergen,121–149.Leiden:Lit VerlagHamburg–AfricanStudiesCentre. ——.2005.Africa’smedia,democracyandthepoliticsofbelonging.London: ZedBooks. ——.2006. Insiders and outsiders: Citizenship and xenophobia in contemporarysouthernAfrica.London:CODESRIA–ZedBooks. Nyamnjoh, F. B., and M. Rowlands. 1998. Elite associations and the politicsofbelonginginCameroon.Africa68(3):320–337. Nyati-Ramahobo,L.2002.Fromaphonecalltothehighcourt:Wayeyi visibilityandtheKamanakaoAsssociation’scampaignforlinguistic andculturalrightsinBotswana.JournalofSouthernAfricanStudies 28(4):685–710. Parsons,N.,W.Henderson,andT.Tlou.1995.SeretseKhama1921–1980. Gaborone:Macmillan. Ramsay,J.,B.Morton,andT.Mgadla.1996.Buildinganation:Ahistory ofBotswanafrom1800to1910.Gaborone:LongmanBotswana. RepublicofBotswana.2000.Reportofthepresidentialcommissionofinquiry intosections77,78and79oftheconstitutionofBotswana.Gaborone: GovernmentPrinter. Ritsema, M. 2003. Gaborone, Botswana. In Encyclopedia of twentiethcenturyAfricanhistory,editedbyP.T.Y.ZelezaandD.Eyoh,231–232. NewYork:Routledge.
“Ever-DiminishingCircles”:TheParadoxesofBelonginginBotswana 331
Saugestad,S.2001.Theinconvenientindigenous:Remoteareadevelopmentin Botswana,donorassistance,andthefirstpeopleoftheKalahari.Uppsala: NordicAfricaInstitute. Schapera, I. 1994 [1938]. A handbook of Tswana law and custom: CompiledfortheBechuanalandProtectorateAdministration.Hamburg: InternationalAfricanInstituteandLitVerlag. Selolwane,O.D.1997.GenderanddemocracyinBotswana:Women’s struggle for equality and political participation. In The state and democracyinAfrica,editedbyGeorgesNzongola-NtalajaandMargaret C.Lee,25–41.Harare:AAPSBooks. ——.1998.Equalityofcitizenshipandthegenderingofdemocracyin Botswana.InBotswanapoliticsandsociety,editedbyW.A.Edgeand M.H.Lekorwe,397–411.Pretoria:J.L.vanSchaik. ——.2000.Botswana:Thechallengesofconsolidatinggoodgovernanceand pluralpolitics.PaperpresentedattheOSSREAsponsoredWorkshopon PromotingGoodGovernanceandWiderCivilSocietyParticipation inEasternandSouthernAfrica,AddisAbaba,November6–8. ——.2004.Ethnicstructure,inequalityandgovernanceofthepublicsector: Botswana case study. Paper presented at the UNRISD International Conference on Ethnic Inequality and Public Sector Governance, March25–27,RigaLatvia.Geneva:UNRISD. Solway, J. 2002. Navigating the “neutral” state: “Minority” rights in Botswana.JournalofSouthernAfricanStudies28(4):711–729. Taylor, I. 2002. The New Africa initiative and the global political economy:TowardstheAfricancenturyoranotherfalsestart?Third WorldQuarterly23(1). Volz,S.2003.EuropeanmissionariesandTswanaidentityinthe19th century.Pula:BotswanaJournalofAfricanStudies17(1):3–19. Waldon,J.1995.Minorityculturesandthecosmopolitanalternative.In Therightsofminorityculture,editedbyW.Kymlicka,93–119.Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress. Werbner,R.2002a.Conclusion:Citizenshipandthepoliticsofrecognition inBotswana.InMinoritiesinthemillennium:PerspectivesfromBotswana, editedbyI.Mazonde,117–135.Gaborone:Lightbooks. ——.2002b.Cosmopolitanethnicity,entrepreneurshipandthenation: MinorityelitesinBotswana.JournalofSouthernAfricanStudies28(4): 632–753. ——.2002c.Introduction:ChallengingMinorities,DifferenceandTribal CitizenshipinBotswana.JournalofSouthernAfricanStudies28(4): 671–684.
332
Francis B. Nyamnjoh
——.2004.ReasonableradicalsandcitizenshipinBotswana:Thepublic anthropology of Kalanga Elites. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Werbner,R.,andD.Gaitskell,guesteds.2002.SpecialIssue:“Minorities andCitizenshipinBotswana.”JournalofSouthernAfricanStudies28 (4). Wilmsen, E. N. 1989. Land filled with flies: A political economy of the Kalahari.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. Yuval-Davis, N., and P. Werbner. eds. 1999. Women, citizenship and difference.London:ZedBooks.
t w e l v e
The Native and the Neoliberal Down Under: Neoliberalism and “Endangered Authenticities” Linda Tuhiwai Smith
T
hischapterdrawsonthepostcolonialpositionof“speakingback” toexaminetheimpactofneoliberalpoliciesasdevelopedinNew Zealand from 1984 and throughout the 1990s on indigenous Maori communities and their responses to the process of reform and the changedenvironment.MaoripeoplearetheindigenouspeopleofNew Zealand whose representatives from different groups, (referred to as “hapu,”“iwi,”or“tribes”)signedtheTreatyofWaitangiin1840with theBritishCrownthatfacilitatedBritishsettlementofNewZealand as a colony of the British Empire. Within 15 years of the Treaty of Waitangi,Maoripeoplebecameaminoritywithintheirownlandsand wereatwarwithsettlergroups.Afterthelandwarsfromthe1850sto the1870s,theNewZealandGovernmentenactedarangeoflegislative initiativesthatultimatelyledtoMaoripeoplebecomingcolonizedand marginalizedinasettler-controlledsociety.Ashashappenedinother colonialcontextstheMaoripopulationdeclinedanditwasthought thatMaoripeoplewouldeventually“dieout”(Pool1991).Butin2006 Maori represent approximately 14 percent of the total New Zealand populationandareahighlyvisibleindigenousminoritygroupwitha growingrateofparticipationinNewZealandsociety. The term Maori communities rather than Maori tribes is used in a deliberatelyloosesenseinthischaptertoencompassthewide-ranging anddynamicsocialandpoliticalgroupingsandorganizationsthrough whichMaoriastheindigenouspeoplesofNewZealandhavecometobe
333
334
Linda Tuhiwai Smith
constitutedinthelatterpartofthe20thcentury.Governmentdiscourse, asexpressedinlegislationandpublicpolicy,hastendedtodefinethese groupingsaswhanau(extendedfamilies),hapu(“subtribes”)andiwi (“tribes”)andapplythetermsasfixedandrigidcategories.Although thetermsareindeedMaoritermsandareusedbyMaoritodescribe both the way they were traditionally organized and the ways they arecurrentlyorganized,Maoriunderstandingsofthemareasflexible and dynamic social institutions. Government legislation and public policyhasatendencytocreatenarrowandrigiddefinitionsthatare used as criteria for belonging or for one’s identity. In the neoliberal moment of the late 20th century many of these groupings came to berecontested,reconfiguredandredefined,andnewgroupingswere constituted such as “urban Maori,” or “rangatahi or young Maori.” Differingnotionsofindigeneityhavebeenaccordedmorelegitimacy bythestate,suchasiwiortribalstructures“mandated”tonegotiate settlements with the British Crown, over small groupings of Maori viewed as unofficial or troublesome minorities. The terms such as, whanau,hapuandiwi,mayhaveremainedthesamebuttheirmeanings havebeensubtlytransformedsuchthatwhilesometermssuchasiwi havebeen“empowered”bylegislativedefinitionsuchthatitslegislated meaningshavebeenupheldintheBritishCourtsystem,otherssuchas “pan-Maori”organizationsbecamemarginalizedandexcluded. Theneoliberalprojectofthelate20thcenturyproducedachallenging and contentious program of economic and social reform that has hadfar-reachingimpactswithinstates,acrossregionsandacrossthe globe.Thefundamentalthesisofneoliberaleconomicshasbeenwell documentedbyitsarchitectssuchasMiltonFriedman,FredrichHayek, andJamesBuchanan,itsadvocates,forexample,MargaretThatcher, andbyitsadversariesandcritics.Neoliberalismpresentedaneconomic theoryforaddressingissuesofsocialinequalityanddisadvantageand offered a promise for social inclusion and participation to various marginalizedanddisadvantagedcommunitiesthatdifferedfromthe modelsofwelfarismthathadbecomeafeatureofpost–WWIIsocial programs.DismantlingtheWelfareStatealongsidemajorreformsin healthandeducationwerekeyplatformsfordeliveringthepromiseof inclusionandgreaterequality.TheNewZealandversionofNeoliberal reform has been referred to by one of its ardent critics, Jane Kelsey (1993),as“TheNewZealandExperiment”partlybecauseNewZealand’s isolation constituted a small laboratory to test strategies that could then be applied in structural adjustment programs elsewhere. This experiment seemed to crystallize and bring forth the economic and
Neoliberalismand“EndangeredAuthenticities” 335
social ideals that came to be summed up in Britain as Thatcherism, namedafterPrimeMinisterMargaretThatcher,andintheUnitedStates asReaganomics,namedafterPresidentRonaldReagan.InNewZealand, thereformprocessisstillreferredtopopularlyasRogernomicsnamed afteraLabourGovernmentMinisterofFinanceRogerDouglas,who wasitsinitialchiefpoliticalarchitect.Neoliberalreformisknownfor itspowerfuluseofrhetoricanddiscoursethatin1980sNewZealand underminedleftistcritiquesofthestatebyfirstappropriatingthemand thenapplyingthemasjustificationforafarreachingreformprogram thatattemptedtohollowoutthestate,reregulatetheeconomy,and privatizemanygovernmentfunctions. The economic reform program began in 1984 under a Labour or center-leftGovernmentandcontinuedthroughthe1990swithacenterrightNationalGovernmentandagainunderthecurrentLabourGovernment.Neoliberaleconomicphilosophyhasbecomethedominantand commonsenseapproachtodevelopment.Theconcernofthischapter isnotsomuchthereformagendaitself,buttheinteractionbetween thisagendaandindigenousMaoricommunitiesandthestrugglesby Maoritosustainamomentumofculturalregeneration,thathadbeen reignitedmanyyearsearlier,throughthedarkestperiodsofreformand theacceleratedwideningofsocioeconomicdisparitiesbetweenMaori andnon-Maorithatappearedduringtheheightofthereforms.Itis importanttoacknowledgethat,becauseofthehistoryofcolonialism, MaoriasagroupwerenotdeeplyweddedtonotionsoftheWelfare Stateortotheexistingmodelsofeducationandhealthcareforwhich New Zealand was highly regarded internationally as they had been systematically excluded from the benefits of such systems. The old systemwasoftenviewedaspatronizing,paternalistic,andracist.Anew approachthatpromisedlessdependencyonawelfaresystemandmore opportunityforchoiceandforthedevolutionofthestatewasviewed withhopefulanticipationbymanyMaori,especiallyasitwasinitially tobedeliveredbyaLabourGovernmentwithwhomMaorifeltthey hadsomekindofcompactbasedonahistoricagreementbetweenthe LabourPartyandalargepan-MaorimovementknownastheRatana Church. PartofwhatIargueinthischapteristhattheneoliberalvisionof societyandthepowerbyitsproponentstoimplementmuchofthat visionthroughthepoliticalprocesssoughttoseverandthenreformulate andprivatizetherelationshipsbetweentheBritishCrownandstateand Maoripeopleasindividuals.Maoricommunities,tribalentities,and politicalactivistshavelongarguedthattheBritishCrownandMaori
336
Linda Tuhiwai Smith
have a relationship as equal partners is embodied in the Te Tiriti o WaitangiortheTreatyofWaitangi.Asecondpartoftheargumentis thatMaoriresistedinquitecomplicatedwaysthatincludedco-opting thepromisesofthereform—forexample,thepromiseofpublicchoice orthedevolutionofthegovernmentbureaucracy—andmakingthem atleastmediatewhatwereinfactquitehostileagendas.Athirdpart oftheargumentisthatneoliberalismisnotjustalittleNewZealand experiment,butpartofanambitiousagendathathasrestructuredthe globaleconomythroughsuchstrategiesasfreetradeagreementsand enforcedstructuraladjustmentprogramsindevelopingcountries.In this sense, the impact on Maori communities resonates with other indigenousandminoritycommunitiesacrosstheworld. Atabroaderlevel,theNewZealandMaoriexampleillustratestheways inwhichideasaboutthe“Native”andthelivedrealitiesofnativeor indigenouscommunitiesareboundupinand“endangered”bytheshifts inthe“Settler”andthechangesinrelationscreatedbytheneoliberal globalproject.ThetermsNativeandSettlerareemployedasmarkersand vestigesofearly-20th-centurycolonialrelationsorasthe“images”of colonizedandcolonizerthatstillinformpopulardiscoursesanddefine understandingsaboutraceandempire.Aspostcolonialscholarshave argued, however, the oppositional category of settler or native was complicatedthroughsystemsofpower,sexandintermarriage,religion and opportunity, warfare and education, and lived and regulated identities.EvenwhentherewerewarsbetweensettlersandnativeMaori communities,therewerealsocomplexallianceswithinandbetween differingsettlerandMaoriinterestswithsometribalgroupsfightingfor theBritishCrownandsomemissionariesspeakingfortherightsofMaori. Bytheendofthe19thcentury,however,Britishsettlershadestablished themselvesinpowerandhadtakencontrolofalltheinstrumentsof colonialismfromGreatBritain.Inthelate20thcentury,Maoriidentities havebeenshapedbydeeplyconstitutedprecolonialrelationshipsand understandings, by the conditions of colonialism, by what was lost andgainedinstrugglesofresistanceandeffortsofengagement,andby theopportunities,resources,anddiscoursesthatwereavailableatkey historicalmoments.Itwouldbenaïvetoassumethatthe“past”either initsprecolonialor19th-and20th-centurycolonialformationsisnot alsoalwayspresentinthewayidentities,subjectivities,discourses,and socialformationsaredeployedandcontestedincontemporaryrelations ofindigeneity,ofsettlersocietiesandnativecommunities.
Neoliberalismand“EndangeredAuthenticities” 337
NewZealand—TheEmergenceofthe NeoliberalProject In1984withtheelectionofaLabourGovernment,NewZealandbegana significantneoliberalprogramofreform,ofderegulationandreregulation oftheeconomyandofarestructuringoftheeducation,health,and welfaresystems.Asvariouswritershavepointedout,neoliberalismisnot aunitarystableideologybutanideathatencompassesvarioustheories andpositionsthatsharesomefeaturesofclassicalliberalthoughtabout thenatureoftheindividual,theroleofthestate,andthemechanisms throughwhichindividualneedsandinterestsarebestmet.AsOlssenhas argued,themarketisakeyfeatureoftheneoliberalagenda.Olssenlists someofthefeaturesofneoliberalismasthenotionofeconomicallyselfinterestedindividuals,ofcompetitionasthemajordriverforefficiency andquality,ofareducedstate,offlexibleandderegulatedlabormarkets andfreetradeandopeneconomies.Thesedoctrineshaveinformedthe majorpoliticaldiscourseinNewZealandforthelasttwodecadesand haveframedthelivesofagenerationwhoarenowadults(Codd1990; KearnsandJoseph1997;Kelsey1993;Moran1999). Neoliberal doctrine and the continuous process of reform and institutionalrestructuringthatNewZealandhasundergoneinthelast two decades, and its effects, has had a cumulative and deeply profoundeffectonNewZealandsociety.NewZealandhasbecomeamore open economy, its international reach has moved from its colonial heritagewithGreatBritaintoAsia,thePacific,andNorthAmerica.New Zealand institutions have all been transformed by neoliberal reform andbytheirownresponsestothereforms.Ineducationneoliberalism has been marked by a discourse of education as a marketplace with parentsandstudentsasconsumersandclients,teachersandschools asself-managingprovidersofservices,andcurriculumknowledgeasa commoditythatcanbetradedinortradedupforsocialgoodiessuch aswellbeingandsocialstatus(Apple2001;Olssen1996).Thereform process redesigned the way schools were administered so that they becomemorecompetitiveandefficientandmoreaccountabletoparents andstudentsforoutcomes.Thereformprocessredesignedtheroleof theprincipalgovernmentagencythatwasresponsibleforeducation asapolicyministrywithminimaloperationalcapacityinareassuchas curriculum.Anewagencytoreviewandassessschoolperformancewas created.Anewcurriculumframeworkwasestablishedandimplemented. Anewagencytoaccreditqualificationsandinstitutionswasestablished. A user pays system for postsecondary education was instituted with
338
Linda Tuhiwai Smith
universitiesandpolytechnicshavingtochargefeesthatrecoveredthe costs for delivering courses. A highly competitive environment was constitutedtokeepthesystemperpetuallyresponsive,efficient,and excellent.Privateprovidersofpostsecondaryeducationandtraining wereuntilveryrecentlyabletocompetewithpublicinstitutionsfor publicfundingandaspiretoattainaccreditationtograntdegrees.Byany measurethisrepresentsamajorrestructuringofthepubliceducation systemintermsofanewhegemonyembeddedinthedisruptionof organizationalchange.
MaoriCulturalRegenerationGoingintothe1980s MaoripeoplehaveexperiencedthedevastatingimpactsofBritishcolonizationsincethe18thcentury.Educationplayedasignificantrole inthecolonizingprocessofferingthepossibilityofbothcivilization onearthandsalvationinheaveninthe19thcentury.Thepossibilities changedtothoseofassimilationandintegrationintotheNewZealand societythathadbeencreatedbythecolonizersinthe20thcentury. Arguably,educationuntilthelate20thcenturywasdesignedtocreate andmaintainsocialdisparitiesbetweenMaoriandPakeha(theMaorilanguagetermforthedominantsettlerpopulation),andbetweenrich andpoor(SimonandSmith2001).Universityeducation,forexample, wasonlyeverconceivedofasbeingavailabletotheveryfew.Theschool curriculumasanotherexamplewasorganizedaroundtheseparation ofacademicandtechnicalsubjects.Bythemid–20thCenturyMaori peoplehadbegunamoreconcertedresistancetostructuralinequality (Walker 1990). The process of resistance produced a political and culturalrenaissanceinthe1970sthateventuallycoalescedaroundtwo organizing symbols, the Treaty of Waitangi and the Maori language (Walker1990).Focusingoneitherorbothofthesetwosymbolsexposed educationasasignificantsiteofcontestation. In 1982 the beginnings of a Maori educational revolution (Smith 1999) was taking place with the development and rapid growth of Te Kohanga Reo (the Maori-language nests) and the rising Maori expectationsthateducationwoulddeliveronitspromiseofequality ofopportunity.Paralleltothesedevelopmentswastheestablishment oftheTreatyofWaitangiTribunalandasettlementprocessforaddressing historic and contemporary grievances committed by the British Crown.Thesettlementprocesshasstartedtodeliveraseriesoftreaty settlementsbetweeniwi(nationsortribes)andtheBritishCrownand thedevelopmentofpartnershipsofvariouskindsbetweentheBritish
Neoliberalismand“EndangeredAuthenticities” 339
Crown,governmentagencies,andiwi.Itisnotmyintentioninthis chaptertoexaminethecomplexarrangementsanddynamicnatureof iwiorMaoricommunitiesbut,rather,tofocusonthepointsatwhich Maoridevelopmentsandneoliberalreformintersectedandtheresults thatwereproducedasaconsequence. The development of Te Kohanga Reo, the Maori immersionlanguage nests, in the early 1980s sparked and continues to inspire thedevelopmentofarangeofMaoriinitiativesineducationthathave developedasalternativemodelswithinandoutsidethecurrentsystem fromearlychildhoodtopostsecondarytertiaryeducation(Jonesetal. 1990). The alternative models include Kura Kaupapa Maori, Maorilanguageimmersionschools,whichdevelopedindependentlyofthe statebutwereincludedasaseparatecategoryofstateeducationinthe EducationAmendmentAct1989andWanangaortribaldegreegranting institutionsofhigherlearningthatwerealsoincludedasacategoryof theEducationAmendmentAct1989.ThesealternativeswereMaoriinitiated institutions based on different conceptions of the purpose ofeducation.Theywerecommunityeffortsthatchallengedthetaken forgrantedhegemonyofschoolingand,asarguedbyGrahamSmith (2000), revolutionized Maori thinking by demonstrating that Maori peoplecouldfreetheirmindsfromthecolonizerandexerciseagency inapurposeful,tactical,andconstructiveway. Theseeducationalalternativesdidnotbeginwithstatesupportand, evenaftertheywereincludedinlegislation,therewasnosupportive infrastructure to ensure their sustainability. There was an implicit expectationthatinthecompetitiveenvironmentsuchschoolswould ultimatelyfailbecauseaccordingtotheneoliberaltheoryselfinterested parentswouldchoosetosendtheirchildrento“quality”schoolsover schoolsthattaughtintheMaorilanguage.InthecaseoftheWananga thethreeinstitutionstookaclaimtotheWaitangiTribunalrelatedto thedisadvantagesthatwerefacedbyWanangawhentheNewZealand MinistryofEducationrulesregardingcapitalexpenditurewerechanged. Therulechangethatwaspartofthereformprocessforeducationmeant thatexistinginstitutionssuchasuniversities,someofwhichhadovera hundredyearsofstatesupporttobuild,furnish,andequiptheirinstitutions,wereabletoowntheircapitalinfrastructure.Meanwhile,new institutionssuchastheWanangaweredeniedstatesupportforbuildings and capital and were expected to finance their infrastructure out of incomederivedonthebasisofstudentnumbers(WaitangiTribunal 1999).ThetribunalrecommendedinfavoroftheWanangaandthe threeinstitutionshavealmostcompletedsettlementnegotiations.
340
Linda Tuhiwai Smith
Asmentionedearlier,therewaslittlereasonpriorto1984forMaorito supportthestatusquo.TheMaoridevelopmentmomentumwasalready inprogresswhentheneoliberalreformprocessbegan.Thismeantthat Maorihadalreadyestablishedaculturalandpoliticalplatformleading intothe1980sforchallengingthoseaspectsofthereformprocessthat seemedtothreatenMaoridevelopmentaswellasaplatformforengaging withtheprocesstoinfluencechange.Thatplatformwasbasedonseveral decadesofpoliticalprotestandsomesuccessfuluseofthelegalsystem toresistgovernmentchanges.Thisisnottosaythatthereformprocess waswelcomingofMaoriparticipation;infactMaorihadtomakeserious demandstobeincludedortobeheard.Attimesoverseasexpertswere oftenbroughtinbytheBusinessRoundtable,aneoliberalthinktank,to dismissMaoriconcernsorshowhowthoseconcernswouldbeaddressed bythenewstructures(Marshall,Peters,andSmith1991).Neithercan itbeclaimedthatMaoriwereparticularlywellorganizedormobilized, in fact, the early reforms that privatized the state industries such as forestrycreatedmassiveMaoriunemploymentandahighdegreeof communitystress.AtitsworstperiodtheunemploymentrateforMaori maleswas24percentoftheavailableworkforce.Thesignificanceofthe transformationinthinkingcreatedbythedevelopmentofTeKohanga Reowasthatintheabsenceoforganizedresistancetherewasenough critiquetoprovideacounterhegemonicpossibilityandtohaveitvoiced ateveryopportunityavailable.ThepointisthatifMaorihadbeenin disarraywithoutanyalternativemodels,thereformprocesswouldhave runadifferentandalikelymoredevastatingcourse.Thereformprocess hashadadisproportionatelynegativeimpactonMaoricommunities widening disparities between Maori and non-Maori in educational achievement,health,andeconomicstatus. SomemightarguethatMaorieducationalinitiativessincethe1980s havebeenproducedbecauseofthereformprocess.However,manyof theseinitiativeswerecreatedpriortothereforms—thisisthecasefor TeKohangaReo,theearlychildhoodlanguageimmersionnests(1982), KuraKaupapaMaorithealternativeMaori-languageimmersionschools (1986),andWananga(1981).Otherinitiativeswereestablishedinthe 1980sasworkprogramsforthegrowingnumberofunemployedand “unskilled”thatacceleratedasaconsequenceofreformsandcontinued growingthroughoutthe1990s.Morerecently,therehavebeeninitiatives thathavecomeaboutasresponsestotheimpactofreformssuchasthe highrateofMaoriparticipationintertiaryeducation.Tertiaryeducation includesbridgingcourses,basicskills,andliteracyprogramsaswellas highereducation.AdisproportionatelyhighrateofMaoricompared
Neoliberalismand“EndangeredAuthenticities” 341
tonon-Maoriparticipateatsubdegreelevelofthetertiarysystem.So, althoughthegeneralrateofparticipationishigh,itisonlybecausethe tertiaryeducationsystemhashadtoabsorbpeoplewhoarenotinthe labormarket.Similarly,thegrowingnumberof“partnerships”between schools,tribalauthorities,andtheMinistryofEducationhasoccurred inregionswherethe“pure”versionoftheself-managingschoolmodel actuallyfailedandschoolsneededsupport,capacitydevelopment,and intermediaryagenciestoself-manage. There are a number of lessons learned by communities as they attemptedtomakesenseof,genuinelyattempttocomplywith,the modelthattheysawasaself-determinationstrategy,andthenreact totheloomingcrisis.Inonesensetheywerelefttotheirowndevices, sincecommunitieswereviewedasunderminingofparents,parentsas underminingofprofessionals,andprofessionalsoffailingtounderstand the radical changes in the system. Some communities subsequently foundstrengthandsocialcohesioninworkingtogetherwhileother communitiesattemptedtocreatefragmentedunitswithinasingleschool thatwouldcaterfortheirparticular“choice”ofeducation.Theseunits includedbilingualorimmersionclassroomswithinEnglish-medium schools. Maori educational institutions continue to face inequities in the system. Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiarangi has been accredited to offer doctoral degrees and offers degrees in environmental studies, indigenous studies, visual arts and culture, and media studies, and alsoprovidescommunity-basedprograms.Inschoolstherehavebeena numberofeducationalpartnershipsbetweentheMinistryofEducation andMaoricommunitiesthathavesoughttofacilitatearangeofinterventions that focus on improving Maori achievement and reengage communitiesinlearningandachievement(MinistryofEducation2004). InMaori-languageeducationtherearearangeofoptionsavailableto parentswhowanteitherpartialorfullimmersioninaMaorimedium environment(MinistryofEducation2004).Inthecurriculumthereis aMaori-languagecurriculumforthecorelearningareasandthereare newcurriculaforstudentsthatdrawonaspectsofMaoriculturesuch asthevisualandperformingarts.Inthegovernanceandmanagement ofeducationthereisanincreasingdemandforinstitutionstobemore accountableforMaoriparticipationandachievement.Inthebroader socialareatherearemoreMaoriorganizationsprovidingsocialservices forMaoricommunities.Morebroadlytherehasbeensomerecognition thatcommunitiesneedhelptobuildcapacity.Maoriengagementwith educationduringthereformshascreatedneweducationalpathways
342
Linda Tuhiwai Smith
andinstitutionsthatwerenottherepriortothereform—thequestion then is whether the reforms enabled such opportunities to occur or whetherthemomentumofMaoriinitiativesprovidedthecapacityby Maoritoexploitthemomentandinsertanalternativeagenda.
MaoriResponsestoNeoliberalReforms Theneoliberalagendaisheldtogetherbyapowerfulallianceofdifferent interest groups that include fundamentalist Christian groups, neoconservatives, probusiness interests, and libertarians all working inacoalitionto“changeourcommonsense,alteringthemeaningsofthe most basic categories, the key words, we employ to understand the social and educational world and our place in it” (Apple 2001: 9; emphasis mine).Apple,pointsoutthatthecoalitionhasitsowntensionsand contradictions and argues that by understanding these tensions we mayfindsomeusefulstrategiesfordisruptingtheslidetotheright. Olssen (2004) argues that these conservative alliances do configure differentlyineachcountryandsuchalliancescannotbereadascohesive ormonolithic.Inthissectionofthechapter,IarguethatMaoripeople as one example of a marginalized community have also gained an insightintothecontradictionsandtensionsoftheneoliberalagenda andhavefoundwaystoeithersubvertordisruptthereformagendaor tocompromiseandaccommodatethereformprocessinwaysthatmay actuallyhaveimprovedtheproposedreformmodelforeducation. Over the course of the reforms Maori communities have acquired some critical understandings of the reform agenda and process, of policymakingandtheroleofMaoriasminorityvoicesinthepolicy process(Durie2004;Smith1999;SmithandSmith1996).Therehasbeen awillingnesstoengagewiththestate,althoughalwaysastruggleover thetermsofengagementandtheoutcomesofengagement.Thereisa thinlayerofcapacitytodothisworkwhilesustainingotherprograms andthereissomerecognitionbyMaorithatindividualsintheprocess get“burnedout.”Maoriaspirationscontinuetobeperceivedasathreat bynon-MaoriandthestruggleforotherdevelopmentssuchasMaori television,customaryrightstotheforeshoreandseabedandalarge numberoftreatyclaimsragesonwithheightenedpoliticalandmedia attention.Overtime,however,theMaorivisionofsocietyhasnotreally waveredfrombeingconceivedofasarelationshipthatisbasedonthe TreatyofWaitangiandonaprincipleofpartnership. Maorihavedeployedarangeoftacticsforengagingwithorresisting neoliberal reform. Rather than focus on what the state has learned
Neoliberalismand“EndangeredAuthenticities” 343
aboutreform,IfocusonwhatMaoricommunitieshavelearnedpartly because community resistances offer hope to others and partly also becausethelessonsrevealthoseaspectsofneoliberalreformwithwhich communitiescanengageandcanfindgroundtoshifttheagenda.In theNewZealandcontextMaoricommunitiesviewthemselvesasactive partnerstotheBritishCrownandthereforeengagewiththestateand withpolicyinquiteproactiveandoftenintimateways,forexample MinistersofGovernmentattendMaorigatheringsandaretoldindirect termswhatpeopleandcommunitiesexpectfromthem.NewZealand isasmallcountrysopublicfiguressuchaspoliticianscanbecontacted directly,onecanquiteliterallyemailorphonethematworkandexpect aresponsefromthem.Maorigatheringsarefrequentlyusedasforums forpoliticaldiscussionsandifpoliticianswanttoengagewithMaori then one of the more effective ways to meet Maori is during these majorgatherings.
CompetingUnderstandingsoftheIndividualand Community Neoliberalismviewstheindividualasanentrepreneurial,self-interested, andcompetitiveentitywhobestunderstandshisorherowninterests andneeds.Thisconceptionofanindividualiscoupledwithaviewthat theroleofthestateisasamediatorofthemarketplacekeepingitopen asaplaceinwhichindividualscancompete.Thisassumestheideaof a“levelplayingfield.”Thestateisdistantfromtheindividualandis nottheretotakecareofindividuals.Olssenarguesthattheneoliberal individualisaslightlydifferentconceptionfromthe“old”liberalview astheneoliberalindividualisonewhois“continuallyencouragedby thestatetobeperpetuallyresponsive”(2004:137).Furthermore,Olssen argues that the role of the state is exercise “new forms of vigilance, surveillance,performanceappraisalandcontrol.”Inthisconception thereisonlylimitedspaceforpassive“victims”andnoroomforthose whoareseenaschoosingtoremainoutsidetheideologicalframework. Thereformsdisplacedindividualsfrompsychiatricinstitutionstobe caredforbytheirfamilies,fromtheworkforce,fromentitlementsto universalchildsubsidies,fromwelfarebenefits,andfromcommunities that“died”becauseindustriescloseddown. Whatmanycommunitieshavelearnedfromtheseprocessesisthat theneoliberalemphasisontheindividualcutsagainstanyconception thatanindividualisaccountableto,oftendependenton,andworks inrelationtosocialgroups.ThestrengthofmanyMaoricommunities
344
Linda Tuhiwai Smith
istheirstrongsenseofcollectiveidentities;thatis,thatindividualsare members of different kinds of social collectives from small families, to complex intergenerational and extended families, from marae or communityplaces,andthroughgenealogicalnetworksthatareconnectedtospecificlandsandhistories.Theseconnectionsprovidethe glueofcommunitycohesionastheyworkthroughvaluesystemsand practices that ensure reciprocal relationships are honored over time andoversucceedinggenerations,andthatrecognizetheprocessofgiftingtoensurethatnoonegoeswithout.Suchsocialpracticesaremore availabletocommunitiesthathaveremainedconnectedtoaplaceand toeachotheroverextendedperiodsoftime.Inthe1960sand1970s urban Maori communities had established cultural institutions that representedtheir“pan-Maori”needsandaspirationswellbeforethe reforms were implemented but the reforms positioned some urban Maoricommunitiesasdeliveryagenciesfordevolvedsocialservices. Two of the largest organizations became powerful voices for Maori notlivingintheirtribalareasandtheseorganizationschallengedthe tribalauthorityandmandateoftribeswhowereseekingsettlements fromtheWaitangiTribunalprocessforhistoricgrievances.Ofcourse, this competitive model was exactly what neoliberalism fosters, but it was divisive for communities and individuals who felt torn by a debateaboutdefinitionsofMaoritermsthatwerebeingcontestedin non-MaoricontextssuchastheBritishParliamentandCourtsystem. ThedefinitionofaniwiforexamplewastakentothePrivyCouncil inEnglandtoadjudicatewiththedecisionultimatelyreinforcingthe definitionofaniwiasimposedbygovernmentlegislation. Both urban- and tribally based social service organizations were contracted to government to deliver services that governments had previouslymonopolized,butwithouttheinfrastructureofgovernment, theywereseenasmoreefficientandlessbureaucraticoperationsfor dealing with the vulnerable members of community. Many Maori, however,interpretedthedevolutionofsocialservicedeliverytoMaori “providers”asanexampleofselfdeterminationwithgreaterdecision makingautonomyoverhowservicesweretobedelivered.Itwasseenby someMaoricommentatorsasabetterwaytodemonstrateMaoricapacity toself-manageandbyotherMaoriasariskypropositionthatwould lead to devolution of responsibility and accountability without real devolutionofpower.Thiswasespeciallynoticeableintheeducational reformswhereself-managingschoolsinsociallydisadvantagedareas occupiedbymostlyMaoriandPacificIslandscommunitiesstruggled tomeettheaccountabilitydemandsforeducationalachievementthat
Neoliberalismand“EndangeredAuthenticities” 345
allWesterngovernmentsstrugglewiththemselvesintermsofsocially disadvantagedgroups.Inotherwords,theyweremaderesponsiblefor theirownoppressionandfreedom. Asmentionedearlier,thenotionoftheperpetuallyresponsiveindividualandorganizationisasignificantaspectofneoliberalinstitutional reform.Itisconnectedtothecompetitiveandcontestablenatureby which the state mediates the market. Social service providers were expectedtocompeteforgovernmentcontractstodeliverservicesmore efficientlythangovernmentagencies.Intheinitialreformphasewhen attemptsweremadetokeepthemodel“pure,”communityagencies werediscouragedfrombuildingincostsforinfrastructureorcommunity capacity.The“perpetuallyresponsive”communityproviderofservices wasviewedasanefficientwaytodeliverprogramsthroughcontestable processesandaregimeofsurveillanceputinplacebythecontracting governmentagencyontheprovider. Manyoftheabovelessonsareveryspecifictotheneoliberalproject. Theyarestrategiesusedtocontestkeyelementsofneoliberalreform suchasthemarketcompetitionmodelofeducation,theuseofdiscursive strategiesforgaininglegitimacyforthereformssuchas“schoolchoice” andmore“parentalcontrol,”theneoliberalpolicyof“targeting”groups thatqualifyforlimitedsupportbecauseuniversalbenefitsareremoved, andtheassertionofthe“levelplayingfield”asadeterminantofsocial justiceandequity(Smith2000).Thereisalsothecycleofperpetual reform that sustains the neoliberal project and keeps marginalized groups and schools alike in the mode of perpetual responsiveness (Apple2001).InNewZealand,neoliberalreformis20yearsoldand stillgoing.Thelessonshoweverarealsoanattempttocaptureasense oftheresourcesandcapacitiesthatmarginalizedcommunitiescanbring tobearinastrugglethatisnotequal.Theseresourcesandcapacities areuneven,vulnerable,andoftenunreliable.Engagingineducational reformprocesseswasoneofmanyengagementsthatcommunitieswere embroiled within as the neoliberal reforms penetrated all aspects of economicandsocialreform. Educationalreformisapoliticalprocessthatisoftenfraughtwith contradictions and assumptions about social change that do not quiteconnectwithsocialrealities.Garneringpublicsupportthrough bothreconstitutingandappealingtocommonsenseisanimportant discursivestrategythatneoliberalreformhasbeenparticularlyeffective atemploying.However,theprocessitselfismessyeveniftheideological messageseemsclear,simple,andunambiguous.IntheNewZealand context, the messiness related in large part to the disestablishment
346
Linda Tuhiwai Smith
of one set of agencies and the reestablishment of a new one. These changeswereaccompaniedbymediacampaignsthatinvitedparent participationwhilealsoblamingteachersandprofessionalsfordeclining educationalstandards.EvenwhentherewasclearevidencethatNew Zealand’s educational standards had not fallen but remained high in the western world the evidence was dismissed. The processes of reformrequiredpeopletocreatesomethingnewwhilesimultaneously destroyinginstitutionalmemoryoftheoldregime. Maoriparticipationintheworkingpartiesthatdiscussedthereform implementation was crucial even though the overall changes may have seemed to be inevitable. One small victory for Maori in the early part of the reform was that an additional working party was formedtoaddresstheestablishmentofKuraKaupapaMaoriandthe inclusionofKuraKaupapaMaoriintheEducationActAmendment 1989.ThiscameaboutbecauseMaorirepresentativesarguedthatthe implementationprocesshadfailedtoincludeaninitiativeinMaori educationthatwasoffering“choice”toMaoriandhadbeenoperating outsidethestatesystemforanumberofyears.Theoutcomewasthat KuraKaupapaMaoriwasincludedintheEducationAmendmentAct 1989asadistinctcategoryofstateschooling.Thelessonhereisthat itisimportantforcommunitiestoactevenwhentheoddsseemto beagainstanycompromise.Itwasalsoimportantthatanalternative visionwasabletobearticulatedinsuchawaythataspectsofthevision couldconnectwiththereformagenda.TheMaorieducationalcrisis wasakeyjustificationforreformandsotherewasameetingground in terms of contesting the legitimacy of the overall reform agenda. However, Maori were also able to engage in the rhetoric of school choicebyarguingthatthechoicesavailabletoMaoriwerelimitedand thereforedisadvantageousor“unfair.” AnotherkeylessonforMaoriwastheneedtobuildsomethingtogether in the face of what seemed to be a deliberate fragmentation and exclusion of communities. Neoliberalism views competition as an important strategy for gaining efficiency and quality. In small marginalizedcommunitieswithoneortwoschoolscompetitioncan alsobedestructiveandgroupswantingtopursueonetypeofeducation, forexampleinMaorilanguage,werepittedagainstotherparentswho wanted the status quo. There was a period in the 1990s in which wholecommunitiesandtheirschoolsystemsseemedtobeunraveling in their struggle to survive. This context helped lead to a series of MinistryofEducationinterventionsostensiblytoimproveeducational achievementsbutalsotostrengthenschoolscapacitytoeducatetheir
Neoliberalismand“EndangeredAuthenticities” 347
owncommunities.Theseinitiativeswere,notsurprisingly,inareaswhere thereweresignificantsocioeconomicdisadvantagesandwherethereare largepopulationsofMaoriandPacificislandscommunities.Initially Maori communities were caught up in trying to compete with each otherforschoolresourcesintermsofoptionsaroundMaori-language educationbuthaveovertimehavesettledintoagradationofoptions thatattempttobalanceparentaldesiresandschoolingcapacities. AsApplealsopointsout,muchoftheneoliberalagendaisalsoabout identitypoliticsandisorganizedaround“consciousandunconsciousracial dynamics”(2001:17;emphasismine).ForMaori,theracialdynamics areplayedoutincomplexwayswithattemptstoaccommodatecertain kindsofengagementsbyMaoriasalegitimationofreform,andyet, withalargeragendaofreformsthathashadtheeffectofincreasingthe marginalizationofMaoriintheactualoutcomesofeducation(Ministry ofMaoriDevelopment2000).Itisimportanttothereformpromisethat Maori“rise”tothemiddleclass,butanassumptionofsuchariseisthat Maoriwilltakeontheinterestsandvaluesofthedominantwhitemiddle classanderasethoseaspectsoftheiridentitythatarefundamentally different.Thishasnothappenedfortworeasons:notenoughMaori have“risen”intothemiddleclassandevenwheretheyhavethereis stillastrongdesirebywelleducatedMaoritoprotectMaorilanguage, knowledge,culture,andidentity. Another series of lessons learned is that communities need their activists,theirtranslators,negotiators,andproblemsolvers.Thisisa kindofleadershipthatdrawsonarangeofskillsandunderstandings for working as minority group leaders in a political environment. Indigenous leadership is often regarded as being in crisis because of theperceptionofthingsgoingterriblywronginindigenousgovernance andeconomicdevelopment.However,governmentsandgovernment agencieshavealongtraditionofdividingtheleadershipofminority communitiesbyselectingtohearonlythoseleadersthatareseenas palatabletothedominantgroupinsociety.Communityactivistsare oftenviewedbythemedia,bypoliticiansandofficialsastroublemakers intentonbeingdestructive.Therearealsoactiveattemptstosilence thevoiceofactivistsinfavorofthoseseenasmore“moderate”and moreaccommodating.IntheNewZealandcontext,beingperceived asanactivistisnotdifficult,onejusthastoexerciseconcern,provide acritique,orexpressanalternativeopinionthatispro-Maoriforthe perceptiontotakeholdthatoneisanactivist.Communityactivistsare importantbecausetheydoleadopinion,frequentlyhaveadifferent interpretationofofficialpolicies,andhavethekindsofnetworksthat
348
Linda Tuhiwai Smith
revealthewiderramificationsofpolicies.Butactivistsarealsoneeded tohelpinterpretandnegotiateofficialpoliciesforcommunitiesina contextinwhichthequalityofinformationrequiredbythemtomake informeddecisionsisoftennotpresent. Intheend,solutionsposedeitherbyneoliberalreformersorcommunitiesthemselvesarenevergoingtobereallyperfectontheground evenifthemodelisperfectonadrawingboard.Educationalreformis asensitiveprocessinvolvingsystemsandpeopleinanongoingseries of change processes. What Maori communities have learned is that engagementintheseprocessescaninfluencesomeofwhathappens and more about how it happens. They have also learned that their owngoodideasareactuallyneededbypolicybecausepolicymakers do not have all the answers themselves and actually struggle with many aspects of implementation. In regards to Maori, many policy makerstendedtohaveverylittleideaaboutwhoMaoripeoplewere andhenceworkedofftheirownstereotypes,whereandhowtheylived andwhatchallengestheyfacedonadailybasis.Manypolicymakers wouldhavelittleideasastothelevelsofdisadvantageexperiencedby manyMaoriinNewZealandsociety.Maoriengagementineducation has been important to the reform process and has provided New Zealand with a unique set of solutions to educational diversity and issues of social inclusion that would not have come about without participationbyMaoriintheprocess.NewZealand’sMaori-language provisioninschoolsforexampleiswellknowninternationally,asis theearlychildhoodcurriculumthatisinfusedwithMaoriconcepts and values. Most tertiary institutions and many secondary schools havetheirownmaraeandmeetinghouses.Mostschoolswithstrong Maoricommunitiescanperformbasicculturalceremoniesofwelcome. Thesechangeshavenotcomeaboutbygoodwilloranunexpectedgift; theyhavebeenarguedfor,protestedover,andultimatelyestablished byMaoripeople.
EndangeringAuthenticitiesandNewSubjectivities What are the implications of this experience for other indigenous peoples?ReyChow(1993)remindsusthatthatthenativedidexist beforethe“gaze”ofthesettlerandbeforetheimageofnativecameto beconstitutedbyimperialism.Chowreferstothe“fascination”with thenativeasa“laborwithendangeredauthenticities.”Theidentity of“thenative”isregardedasacomplicated,ambiguousandtherefore troublingtermevenforthosewholivetherealitiesandcontradictions
Neoliberalismand“EndangeredAuthenticities” 349
ofbeingnative,andamemberofacolonizedandminoritycommunity thatstillremembersotherwaysofbeing,ofknowingandofrelating totheworld.Whatistroublingtothedominantculturalgroupabout thedefinitionof“native”isnotwhatnecessarilytroublesthe“native” community. The desires for “pure,” uncontaminated and simple definitionsofthenativebythesettlerisoftenadesiretocontinueto knowanddefinetheOtherwhereasthedesiresbythenativetobeselfdefiningandself-namingcanbereadasadesiretobefree,toescape definition,tobecomplicated,todevelopandchangeandberegarded asfullyhuman.Inbetweensuchdesires,however,aremultipleand shiftingidentitiesandhybriditieswithmuchmorenuancedpositions about what constitutes native identities, native communities and nativeknowledgeinanti-andpostcolonialtimes.Doestheshifttoa neoliberalglobalorderaltertherelationshipsbetweentheNativeand theSettler?Doesneoliberalismendangertheauthenticitiesofnativeor indigenouspeoples?Doesneoliberalismconstitutenewsubjectivities ofnativeandindigeneity? Thenotionofauthenticityisonethatisopentocritiqueandclaims byindigenouspeoplestohavingandlivinganauthenticlifeasanative personorcultureisoftenseenasromanticorpoliticallymotivated.In reality,mostMaoripeopleandcommunitiesdonotclaimtolivethe samelifetheirancestorslivedandquestiontheidealizationandthe “image”ofthenativeheldbynon-nativepeople.Theyareoftenexpected tomakesuchclaimsincontextswheretheirrightsasindigenouspeoples arenotrecognizedorareunderthreat.AsanexampleinNewZealand, theTreatyofWaitangiTribunalprocessesrequireclaimantstoestablish agrievanceandthentosubstantiatethatgrievancebyrecitingtheir genealogiesandprovidingevidencethattheyarewhotheysaythey are.ThisveryprocessconstitutesspecificMaorisubjectivities:aspeople withagrievance,aspeoplewhoneedatreatyandtosomeextentas “victims.”ThevictimpositionisonethatmanyMaorirejectpreferring insteadtheindigenousterm,tangatawhenuaor“peopleoftheland,”asa termthatassumescolonizationhastakenplacebutalsoencapsulatesan alternativesetofworldviews,relationshipsandfuture.Theoccasional non-MaoripublicfigurealsoechoesthecommonsensebeliefthatMaori peopleshould“look”Maori.Inonerecentspeechtheleaderofthemain oppositionpartyreferredtoMaoriasnolongerarealindigenouspeople astheirbloodwaswatereddownbyintermarriage.Whentheydo“look” Maoriwithamokoorfacialtattootheyaredeniedjobsortoldthatthey are“makingup”theirculture.Neoliberalismhashelpedconstitutenew subjectivitiesthroughdiscourseandthroughatheoryofthecompetitive
350
Linda Tuhiwai Smith
entrepreneurialindividual,butthatviewhasnotentirelyreplacedthe rangeofsubjectivitiesavailable,ratherresistantsubjectivitiesarealso createdtocounterthehegemonyofneoliberalism. Throughaseriesofnationalgatheringsin2004–06thatdiscussed Maoriaspirations,itwouldseemthatmostMaoriwhoattendedthe gatheringswantedtobeabletochooseto“liveasMaori”andalsobe able to live as citizens of New Zealand, as citizens of the world and enjoythebenefitsofgoodhealthandwell-being(Durie2004).Most MaorialsoacceptthatMaoricultureisadynamicculturethatchanges inresponsetostructuralandculturalconditions.Indeedmanyofthe debatesheldwithintheMaoricommunityareoftenaboutsocialand culturalchange.Neoliberalismhasbeentheideologythathasshaped theNewZealandeconomyandsociety.Neoliberalismhasbeeninfluentialincreatingthemarketplaceasthesitewherenativeandindigenous peoples,communities,knowledges,andidentitiesarecontestedasif theyaresimplycommoditiesofcultureandlegaciesofthepast.Charles Hale similarly suggests that neoliberalism has included limited recognitionforindigenouscultural“rights”inotherplacessuchasLatin America, but this recognition has had unexpected effects that have includedgreatercapacitybythestatetomanageandcontrolpolitical dissent.Halearguesthatneoliberalismhasconstituteditownversion ofmulticulturalismthatawaitsdisruptionsfromgroupsthatdonotfit theneatneoliberalmulticulturalidentities. Hale’sexamplesfromLatinAmericahavesomeresonancewiththe widercontextofmulticulturalisminNewZealand.Newidentitiesof indigenous have been re-formed, formed, and articulated in the era ofneoliberalism.Someidentitieshavebeencreatedbylegislationand confirmedbytheBritishCourtsforexamplethecurrentdefinitionsofiwi ortribeinNewZealand.OtheridentitieshavebeencreatedbytheBritish Courtsandoverturnedbylegislationforexamplenativetitleholdersto theforeshoreandseabed.Yetanotherpoliticalphenomenonknownas theMaoriPartyemergedindirectresponsetothegovernment’sstance onabrogatingnativetitletotheforeshoreandseabedandafterentering the parliamentary elections has four members of parliament (Smith 2006).Someidentitiesestablishedinresponsesto19th-centurycolonial practicessuchastheKingitangamovementthatsawMaorichiefsat the time elect a “King” have become institutionalized in the 21st centuryasanalmosttraditionalinstitutionwithlegitimationcoming from different Maori groupings as well as from politicians and the BritishCrown.TherecentdeathsandfuneralceremoniesoftheMaori “Queen”DameTeAtairangikaahuandtheKingofTongademonstrate
Neoliberalismand“EndangeredAuthenticities” 351
theinfusingofculturewithallkindsofinfluences:traditional,colonial, and contemporary; western and Polynesian Pacific; New Zealand; and media news broadcasts for both ceremonies in the English and MaorilanguagesbyMaoritelevision.Whenexaminedagainstalonger andwiderhistoricalframe,itispossibletoseetheformationofnew indigenousidentitiesovertimeascreationsofthestateinthecaseof regulatedidentities,reactionstothestatesuchasindigenouspolitical resistancesandsometimescreativealmosttangentialoccurrencesdriven byeventshappeningintheindigenouscommunitiesthemselves.In thischapter,IhaveattemptedtostandpartlyinsideMaoriperspectives to argue that communities of different kinds engaged in the reform processes by drawing on a range of cultural indigenous aspirations andresourcesandthatthecapacitytodothisinasustainedalthough not highly organized manner—through different avenues such as education, the Waitangi Tribunal, the British Court system and the politicalsystem—hasdisruptedsomeaspectsoftheNewZealandversion ofneoliberalism.
References Apple,Michael.2001.Educatingthe“right”way:Markets,standards,God, andinequality.NewYork:RoutledgeFalmer. Chow,R.1993.Writingdiaspora:Tacticsofinterventionincontemporary culturalstudies.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress. Codd,J.1990.EducationalpolicyandthecrisisoftheNewZealand state. In New Zealand educational policy today: Critical perspectives, editedbyS.Middleton,J.Codd,andA.Jones,191–205.Wellington: AllenandUnwin. Durie,M.2004.ProgressandplatformsforMaorieducationalachievement. Paper presented to Hui Taumata Mautauranga Maori Education Summit.Electronicdocument,http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index. cfm?layout=document&documentid=6491&indexid=6506&indexp arentid=8734,accessedJanuary18,2007. Hale, Charles. 2005. Neoliberal multiculturalism: The remaking of culturalrightsandracialdominanceinCentralAmerica.PoLAR28 (1):10–28. Jones,A.,J.Marshall,G.McCulloch,G.H.Smith,andL.T.Smith.1990. Mythsandrealities.PalmerstonNorth:DunmorePress. Kearns, R. A., and A. Joseph. 1997. Restructuring health and rural communitiesinNewZealand.ProgressinHumanGeography21:18– 32.
352
Linda Tuhiwai Smith
Kelsey,Jane.1993.Rollingbackthestate:PrivatisationofpowerinAotearoa/ NewZealand.Wellington:BridgetWilliamsBooks. Marshall,J.,M.Peters,andG.H.Smith.1991.Thebusinessroundtable andtheprivatisationofeducation:Individualismandtheattackon Maori.InEducationpolicyandthechangingroleofthestate,editedby L.GordonandJ.Codd,99–106.Delta,PalmerstonNorth:Massey University. Ministry of Education. 2004. Maori education. Electronic document, http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=index&indexid=10 63&indexparentid=2107,accessedJanuary18,2007. MinistryofMaoriDevelopment.2000.Closingthegaps(June).Wellington: NewZealandGovernmentPublication. Moran,W.1999.DemocracyandgeographyinthereregulationofNew Zealand. In Restructuring societies: Insights from the social sciences, editedbyD.B.KnightandA.E.Joseph,33–58.Ottawa:Carleton UniversityPress. Olssen,M.1996.Neoliberalismandthewelfarestate:Prospectsforthe Year2000.ACCESSCriticalperspectivesonCulturalandPolicyStudies inEducation15(1):1–33. ——.2004. Neoliberalism, globalisation, democracy: Challenges for education.Globalisation,SocietiesandEducation2(2):231–276. Pool,I.1991.TeIwiMaori.ANewZealandpopulationpast,presentand projected.Auckland:AucklandUniversityPress. Simon,Judith,andL.T.Smith,eds.2001.Acivilisingmission?Perceptions andrepresentationsoftheNewZealandNativeschoolssystem.Auckland: AucklandUniversityPress. Smith,G.H.1999.ReformoftheNewZealandeducationsystemand responsesbytheindigenousMaoriofNewZealand.Directions:Journal ofEducationalStudies,InstituteofEducation,USP21(1):60–72. ——.2000. Maori education: Revolution and transformative action. CanadianJournalofNativeEducation24(1):57–72. Smith,G.H.,andL.T.Smith.1996.NewMaorimythologies.InNga Patai,editedbyP.Spoonley,D.Pearson,andC.McPherson,217–234. PalmerstonNorth:DunmorePress. Smith, K. T. 2006. The Maori party. In New Zealand government and politics, edited by Raymond Miller, 507–516. Auckland: Oxford UniversityPress. WaitangiTribunal.1999.WanangaCapitalEstablishmentReport.Electronicdocument,http://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/publications/ published_reports.asp,accessedJanuary18,2007. Walker,Ranginui.1990.KaWhawhaiTonuMatou:Strugglewithoutend. Auckland:PenguinBooks.
Part 5 Indigenous Self-Representation, Non-Indigenous Collaborators and the Politics of Knowledge
This page intentionally left blank
t h i r t e e n
Melting Glaciers and Emerging Histories in the Saint Elias Mountains Julie Cruikshank
C
oncepts travel, Andre Beteille (1998) reminds us, carrying and accumulating baggage that may gain unexpected ideological weight.Hetargetsthecasualuseof“indigenous,”anideawithlayered historicalmeaningsthataccruedinitiallyduringexpandingEuropean colonialismandproliferatedmorerecentlyinpostcolonialdiscourses. Indigenousisaconceptnowlodgedworldwide,Beteillesuggests,applied indiscriminatelytopeoplesanthropologistsformerlycalled“tribes.”He addressestheironiesofexportingthistermfromclassicsettlersocieties (NorthAmerica,Australia,NewZealand,etc.)togeographicalsettings wherecomplexpopulationsmovementsdefysuchshorthand. Theconcept“indigenous,”though,hasrhetoricallyexpandedfrom anexogenous,categorytooneofself-designationsignifyingcultural recognition, defense of human rights, and protection under internationallaw(Stavenhagen1996).1Inaworldnowabstractlyuniversalizedaspostcolonial,ethnographicinvestigationofemergingindigenous identitiesmaycontributetosocialanalysisinsettingswherelandrights andthelegal,economicandsocialstatusofminorityrightsremaincontroversial.Anthropologicalinvestigationsofindigenism’stwintraveler, the equally essentialized term nationalism, have demonstrated that nationalismisnotonething,andthatwhatmayappearsuperficially tobeaEuropeancategoryisfrequentlyembeddedinradicallydiffering ideologies. Ineverydaypractice,thetermindigenousisnowmoreoftenused inrelationalcontextsthanasaprimarycategoryofself-ascription.In Canada, for instance, the terms Aboriginal and First Nation emerged aspreferredformsforself-referenceduringthe1980sand1990s.First 355
356
Julie Cruikshank
NationreplacestheadministrativetermIndianbandlongusedbythe GovernmentofCanada,whereasAboriginal,themoreinclusiveterm, encompassesInuitandMétis.InnorthernCanada,self-designationsin locallanguagesareinfrequentuse.Indigenous,however,isbecomingthe termofchoiceforsomeyoungurbanactivistswhodescribeAboriginal andFirstNationastooenmeshedwithofficialstatediscourses.Invoked withreferencetoemerginginternationalalliances,indigeneityhighlights similarities with other populations who share histories of dispossession, impoverishment, and enforced schooling. Increasingly authorizedbyUNworkingcommittees,indigenismhasbeenidentified asanewkindofglobalentitycurrentlygainingmomentum(Niezen 2000:119).Yetitsexpandingusage,aschaptersinthisvolumeattest, highlightstensions. Ifthenewindigenismisincreasinglyarelationalandconstructed processinCanada,itemergesfromahistoryofdistinctencountersand buildsondiverseconnections.Earlytreaty-makingprocessesinBritish NorthAmericasuggestthatcolonialpowerstacitlyacknowledgedlocal sovereignty.Subsequentemplacementofaninternationalborderacross NorthAmericain1867partitionedCanadafromtheUnitedStatesand arbitrarilyallocatedaboriginalpopulationstoonenationstateorthe other.Acenturyon,anewgenerationofyoungactivists,emboldened bysocialprotestandradicalactivismthatcharacterizedthe1960sbegan rebuildingcross-borderalliances.OntheCanada’sPacificwestcoast, FirstNationsforgedconnectionswithNewZealandMaoriduringthe 1970s(Tsingthisvolume).Furthernorth,circumpolarnetworkshave drawnarcticandsubarcticpeoplesintocommoncauses(MinorityRights Group 1994; Smith and McCarter 1997). Ongoing encounters with postcolonialstates,withscience,andwithinternationalorganizations arethemesexploredinthischapter. PostcolonialtheoryforcesustolookcriticallyathowEnlightenment categorieswereexportedfromEuropethroughexpansionofempireto placeslikenorthwesternNorthAmericaoncedeemedtobe“ontheverge oftheworld”andhowthosecategorieshavebecomesedimentedin contemporarypractice.Inthischapter,Ilookatconceptsofindigeneity throughthelensoflocalknowledge,inasettingwheresuchknowledge isseeminglygaininggroundyetstillreceivedandadjudicatedlargely withinscientificnormsofuniversalism.Itracesomeofthecontinuities orsimilaritiesinthewaysthatconceptsofknowledge—variouslydeemed tobe“local,”“indigenous,”“Western,”or“universal”—aredeployed, arguingthatthecolonialityofindigeneityissometimesreinforcedby hierarchieseveninseeminglyprogressivecontexts.
MeltingGlaciersandEmergingHistoriesintheSaintEliasMountains 357
Mychapteroriginatesinapuzzlefrommyethnographicresearch— the appearance of glaciers in life stories told by elderly indigenous womenwhowereborninthelate19thcenturyandlivedtheirentire livesjustinlandfromtheSaintEliasMountains.Ispentthe1970sand early1980sintheYukonTerritoryworkingwithseveralwomeneagerto documentmemoriesforyoungergenerations.Amongtheaccountsthey recordedweresomeaboutadesperatelycoldyearduringthemid–19th centurywhensummerfailedtoarrive,andaboutglaciersthatdamned lakesandeventuallyburstwithcatastrophicconsequences.Theirstories alsochronicledvoyagesmadebyinlandAthapaskanandcoastalTlingit ancestorswhotraded,traveled,andintermarriedbetweentheYukon plateauandtheGulfofAlaska.Sometimesprotagonistscrossedover glaciersonfootandothertimestraveledinhand-hewncottonwood boats,racingunderglacierbridgesthatperiodicallyspannedmajorrivers drainingtothePacificfromthehigh-countryinterior.Othernarratives recountedhowstrangers,k’och’en,(thecolorless“cloudpeople”)first cameinlandfromthecoast,traversingglaciers,andthetransformations theirarrivalheralded. Initially,Iwasperplexedbyreferencestoglaciersintheselifestories. Bythe1970s,thewomenIknewwerelivingwellinlandfromtheSaint EliasIcefields,yetinsistedonincludingglaciernarrativestoexplain regionalhumanhistory.Followingconnectionstheymadeinitiallyled metoliteraturecenteredonthreeseeminglydistinctthemesthatIuse toframethisdiscussion:historiesofenvironmentalchange;analyses ofcolonialencounters;anddebatesaboutlocalknowledge. First,glacierstoriesdirectedmetoaccountsaboutenvironmentalchange thatoccurredinnorthwesternNorthAmericaduringthelifetimesof thesewomen’sparentsandgrandparents.Storiesofgeophysicalrisks thatdominatetheseaccountsareassociatedwithlatestagesofaperiod somescientistscallthe“LittleIceAge.”JeanGrove,thephysicalgeographerwhocoinedthistermforanintervalofglobalcoolingbetween the Middle Ages and the early 20th century, traces some of its slipperinessinherclassicvolumeTheLittleIceAge(1988),andnotesthat chronologiesvaryfromregiontoregion.ArchaeologistBrianFagan’s recentbookofthesametitle(2000)suggestsC.E.1300–C.E.1850for westernEurope,butalsonotesthatscientistsdisagreeaboutdates.In thePacificNorthwest,theyearsbetweenC.E.1500andC.E.1900are commonlycited. Second,Iarguethatglacierstoriesalsodepicthumanencountersthat coincidedwithlatestagesofthisLittleIceAge.IntheGulfofAlaska,two fundamentalprocessesthatareoftendiscussedindependentlycoincided:
358
Julie Cruikshank
geophysicalchanges(theturfofnaturalsciences)andEuropeancolonial incursions (a sphere of social sciences and humanities). By the late 1700s,whenicefieldswereespeciallyactive,sowascommerceinfurs transportedfromAmerica’sfarnorthwesttoLondon,Paris,andMoscow. Both oral and written accounts depict encounters with changing landscapes,butalsowithEuropeanswhowerecrossingglaciersfrom thePacifictoreachtheinteriorbythelate1800s.Notably,anotherkind of encounter follows from those meetings—between stories written andtoldaboutsucheventsandtheirsubsequentreadersandlisteners astheygettakenupindifferentknowledgetraditions.Glacierstories movethroughtime,connectwithothers,andarebeingreinvigorated asglobalclimatechangeinfluenceslocalglacierconditions. Third, I use the term local knowledge to refer to tacit knowledge embodiedinlifeexperiencesandreproducedineverydaybehaviorand speech.Variouslycharacterizedas“primitivesuperstition,”as“ancestral wisdom,”oras“indigenousscience,”ithaslongbeenframedasafoil forconceptsofWesternrationality.Localknowledge,then,isaconcept oftenusedselectivelyandinwaysthatrevealmoreabouthistoriesof Westernideologythanaboutwaysofapprehendingtheworld.Itslate20th-centuryincarnationas“indigenous”oras“ecological”knowledge continues to present local knowledge as an object for science—as potentialdata—ratherthanasakindofknowledgethatmightinform science.Iarguethatlocalknowledgeisnotsomethingwaitingtobe “discovered”but,rather,iscontinuouslymadeinsituationsofhuman encounter:betweencoastalandinteriorneighbors,betweencolonial visitorsandresidents,andamongcontemporaryscientists,managers, environmentalistsandFirstNations. I begin with a few words about the physical dimensions of the mountainsandglaciersinthisplace.Inextoutlinesomeoldandsome newstoriesthatshowhowthemesofenvironmentalchange,human encounters,andlocalknowledgearestillcentraltostrugglesinplaces depictedas“remote”despitelongentanglementswithworldmarkets. I conclude with reference to conflicting stories circulating in these mountains and their ongoing connections to memory, history, and indigenousrights.Notsurprisingly,interpretiveframeworksseemto becontinuallyrecastonallsidestomeetcontemporaryspecifications. Insightsfromcurrentworkonmemoryandforgettingclarifyjusthow profoundlythesethreestrands—changingenvironment,transformative human encounters, and local knowledge debates—are entangled as they circulate in transnational contexts under new rubrics like environmentalism,postcolonialism,and“traditionalecologicalknowledge”initsmanyacronyms.
MeltingGlaciersandEmergingHistoriesintheSaintEliasMountains 359
America’sNorthwestGlaciers The Saint Elias Mountains include some of North America’s highest peaksandsupporttheworld’slargestnonpolaricefields(seefig.1).These glacierswerecreatedbyiceages,maintainedbyclimate,andhavebeen inplaceforthousandsofyears.Thisregionfascinatesmeforseveral reasons. First, in my ethnographic research in the Yukon Territory and Alaska I have heard vivid accounts of glacier travel transmitted inindigenousoraltraditions.Second,asustainedrecordofscientific researchhere,athighaltitudeandhighlatitude,makesitakeysitefor contemporaryclimatechangestudies.Third,thisregionhasrecently become the world’s largest UNESCO-designated World Heritage Site spanning the Alaska–Canada border and encompassing four parks: KluaneNationalParkandTatshenshini-AlsekProvincialParkonthe Canadianside,Wrangell-SaintEliasandGlacierBayNationalParksin theUnitedStates.Thefarnorthwest,oncethesourceofafabulously lucrativeseaottertradehasre-mergedasasitefornewglobalnarratives, thistimewithstrongenvironmentalthemes. �
�������� �������������
�
��
������
��
�
������� ��������
������ ��
�
��
�� ��
����� ���������
���� ������� �
���������� ���������
��������� ���������� ���
���
������ ������� ���
��
�������� ����
��
��
� ������ � � � ��
�
������
��
������������
�
��
������������ ��������
�������� ��������
������������ �����
����������������
� ������
������� �����
360
Julie Cruikshank
Significantly, Icefield Ranges includes glaciers that surge—of great interesttogeophysicalsciences.Surgingglaciersmayadvancewithout warning after years of stability, sometimes several kilometers, and theyfrequentlycreateice-dammedlakesthatbuildupandburstout whentheicethinsandthedambreaks.Surgingglaciersalsooccurin GreenlandandtheAntarctic,butissuesofscaleandaccessibilitymake themeasiertostudyintheSaintEliasMountains.Ofsome4,000glaciers ontheseicefields,arelativelylargenumber—atleast200—havethis characteristic.Inthisplace,wenowseenaturerepresentedinmany ways—as“primordialwilderness,”asa“climatechangelaboratory,”or asagiant“junglegym”forecotourists.InnorthwesternCanada,such depictionsnowcompetewithviewsbylocalindigenousresidentswho livedandhuntedintheselandsuntil1943,whentheywererelocated east of the Alaska Highway after the Kluane Game Sanctuary (and, later,KluaneNationalParkandReserve)wassetasideastheYukon’s first“protectedarea.” IbeginwithonestoryaboutaglaciernowofficiallynamedLowell Glacier that I first heard in November 1978 when Mrs. Kitty Smith, almost90atthetime,askedmetorecordit.Bornapproximately1890, shegrewupintheTatshenshiniRivervalley.Asachild,shebecame wellacquaintedwithunpredictableglacialsurgesandtheinterpretive challenges of living with glaciers. Lowell Glacier, for instance, has crossed the Alsek River more than once. Mrs. Kitty Smith identified itbythenameNàlùdi,or“FishStop”becauseitinterruptedsalmon migrationsupthatrivertotheinterior,leavingland-lockedsalmonin KathleenLake. Hernarrativedemonstratesconsequencesofhubris,aclassictheme instoriestoldhere.Nàlùdi,shesays,wasprovokedtosurgewhena recklesschildtravelingtotheinteriorwithcoastalTlingittradersjoked aboutabaldingAthapaskanshaman.“Ah,thatoldman,”hereportedly said,“thetopofhisheadisjustliketheplacewheregophersplay,a barestump!”Topunishthistransgression,theshamanwithdrewtothe topofahighblufffacingtheglacierandbegantodream,summoning theglaciertoadvanceacrosstheAlsekRivervalley.Itsurged,reached thisbluff,andbuiltanimmensewalloficethatdammedtheriver andcreatedanupstreamlakeahundredkilometerslong.Whenthat icedameventuallyburst,theresultingfloodscouredthelandscape, drowningTlingitfamiliescampedatthejunctionoftheAlsekand Tatshenshinirivers.Nàlùdisurgedagain,shesays,shortlyafterher own birth. That summer, the glacier blocked the river and flooded thevalleybasinforjustafewdaysbeforedraining(Cruikshankwith
MeltingGlaciersandEmergingHistoriesintheSaintEliasMountains 361
Sidney, Smith, and Ned 1990: 205–208, 332–333; McClellan 2001 [1975]:71–72). Theseeventsarepreservedinthegeosciencerecord,althoughscientists providedifferentcausalexplanationsforsurges(ClagueandRampton 1982).TheyestimatethattheadvancingLowellGlaciercreatedatwo hundred meter high ice dam after it came to rest against Goatherd Mountain and impounded Neoglacial Lake Alsek in the mid–19th century,asithadseveraltimesduringtheprevious2800years.When the dam broke, it discharged water through the Alsek valley in an enormousflow,emptyingthelakeinoneortwodays.Giantripplemarks leftinitswakearestillvisiblefromtheairandontheground.Scientists nowrefertooralhistories,tiedtogenealogiesofnamedpersonsthat suggest1852asapossibledateforthelastmajoroutburstflood(De Laguna1972:276). At issue here are diverging notions of agency and interpretation. OnekeydifferencebetweenAthapaskanoraltraditionsandscientific discourse is that elders’ narratives merge natural and social history, whereasscientistsassessingenvironmentalchangedescribeoneoftheir objectives as disentangling natural from cultural factors. Elders, for instance,citethefollyof“cookingwithgrease”nearglaciers,lestthis exciteeithertheglacierorthebeinglivingwithinsuchaglacierden. Food should be boiled, never fried, in the presence of glaciers and nogreaseshouldeverbeallowedtoescapefromthecookingvessel. Inevitably,suchexplanationsfalloutofmostcontemporarystudiesof “localknowledge,”becausetheyneitherfiteasilywithcontemporary scientificunderstandingsofcausalitynorcontributetodatabases. Other stories about glaciers are harder to understand, like those depicting glaciers emitting heat so intense that people were driven tosubmergeinglacialriverstoavoidbeingconsumed.Weknowthe terribleconsequencesofepidemics,particularlysmallpox,thatraged north up the North Pacific coast during the 19th century, and that alternatingsweatingandsubmersioninwaterwasastrategyusedby coastalvictimsseekingrelief(Gibson1983).Butfewdetailsareknown about epidemics that traveled up the Alsek. Public health physician RobertFortuine(1989)identifiesthecoastalsmallpoxepidemicthat occurredbetween1835and1840asoneofthemostsignificantevents inAlaskahistory.StartingatSitka,itspreadnorthwardtoLynnCanal. Anthropologist Catharine McClellan estimates that it swept up the Alsekin1838,andthatanothersmallpoxepidemicfollowedin1862 (McClellan2001[1975]:24,223).Twoepidemicsandanoutburstflood musthavecoincidedwithinonegeneration,buttheextentoflosses
362
Julie Cruikshank
seems to have prevented transmission of firsthand accounts to the present. Historian Mike Davis has documented how imperial expansion through Asia was enabled when it coincided with El Niño induced droughtsandfaminesinthelate19thcentury(Davis2001).Innorthwestern North America’s far northwest, Tlingit traders encountered similarintrusionsduringlatestagesoftheLittleIceAge.Theytraveled inlandin1852anddestroyedFortSelkirk,atradingpostthatHudson BayCompanytraderRobertCampbellhadestablishedthreeyearsearlier to divert trade away from long-established Aboriginal networks and intoBritishhands. Anthropologists, geographers, and historians have demonstrated theenduringpoweroflandscapefeaturestoactaspointsofreference anchoringmemories,values,andtacitknowledge.Agrowingbodyof research about social memory suggests that landscapes are places of remembranceandsitesoftransmission,andthatculturallysignificant landformsoftenprovideakindofarchiveinwhichmemoriesarecanbe mentallystored(Boyarin1994).IntheSaintEliasMountains,though, wecanseealsohowchanginglandscapefeatureslikefluctuatingglaciers havealsoprovidedimaginativegristforcomprehendingchangingsocial circumstancesaffectinghumanaffairs.Orallynarratedstoriesindeed provide empirical observations about geophysical changes and their consequences,butalsodemonstratehowglaciersprovidematerialfor evaluatingchangeswroughtbycolonialhistories. Such overlapping and conflicting interpretations of glaciers have 21st-centuryconsequences.Theyseemtotypifyorevenmodelclassicand continuingstrugglesoverculturalmeaningsreplicatedincontemporary debates.ImplicationsofwhatBrunoLatourcallsthis“GreatDivide” differentiatingnaturefromculturecontinuetocascadeinternationally throughdebatesaboutenvironmentalism,biodiversity,globalclimate change,andindigenousrights(Latour1993;seealsoFranklin2002; HornbergandPálsson2000;MacnaghtenandUrry1998). I now turn to some contemporary narratives that provide further pointsofoverlapandcontrast.
NewStoriesfromMeltingGlaciers Inthe1990s,theSaintEliasIcefieldsbegantorevealfreshsurprises. Threerecent“discoveries”showjusthowslipperyourviewsofnature andsocietycanbe.In1991,biologistDavidHikspottedarectangular pieceofhideroughlyonemeterinlengthandhalfameterwidemelting
MeltingGlaciersandEmergingHistoriesintheSaintEliasMountains 363
fromaglaciernearthecenterofwhatisnowKluaneNationalPark. It had been modified by humans—with slits around the edge and a possiblefragmentofthong—andlookedold.AsrequiredbyCanadian law,HikinformedKluaneParkstaff,whotookchargeofthehideand thensentittoparkheadquartersinWinnipegwhereithasremained inafreezer.Itappearstohavebeenleftinthecentralicefieldsbya traveler approximately 1,000 years ago (1,110 BP +/− 50, calibrated toaccountforfluctuationsofcarbonintheatmosphere).Afteritwas identified as bear hide, parks scientists hoped that it might reveal information about genetic relationships and diversity in the Kluane grizzlybearpopulationovertime;however,nogeneticinformationhas beensalvageablebecauseofrepeatedthawingandfreezing(personal communicationsfromDavidHik,UniversityofAlberta,1992;andDavid Arthurs,ParksCanada,2003). Sixyearslater,in1997,awildlifebiologisthikingnearanorthfacing alpine basin some 1,830 meters above sea level stumbled on a square-kilometerconcentrationofcariboudroppingsmeltingfroman alpinesnowpatch.Artifactswereliterallypouringoutofmeltingice. Subsequentresearchrevealedevidenceofancientcaribouharvesting onthemountainnamedThandlätinSouthernTutchonelanguage. Scientists describe this as a rare opportunity to explore questions abouttheprehistoricecologyoflargecariboupopulations,implications ofclimatechangeforcaribou,andhumanuseofhigh-elevationhunting sites. The droppings contain mitochondrial and nuclear DNA that biologistsintendtocomparewiththatoflivingcariboupopulations as well as ancient pollen that may help to reconstruct past climates (Kuzyketal.1999).By2003,72ancientalpineicepatches,usuallyno morethanasquarekilometerand50metersdeep,hadbeenidentified in southwest Yukon. Eighteen of these have yielded tools and the workcontinues.Radio-carbondatesforrarewoodentoolsandother organicmaterialmeltingfromthesepatchesdemonstrateanenduring relationshipbetweencaribouandhumanhuntersathighaltitudeand latitudeforatleast8,000years,rightupuntilthelate19thcentury (Farnelletal.2004;Hareetal.2004;Krajick2002). ArchaeologistsworkinginAthapaskanterritoriesareaccustomedto makingtheirinferencesfromasparsematerialrecord.Subarctichunters madetheirtoolslargelyfromperishablematerials—skin,wood,sinew— usedthem,leftthembehindandremadethemasneeded,atechnology constructedfromingeniousprinciplesandcarriedintheheadrather thanontheback.Understandably,then,perfectlypreservedtoolsmade fromorganicmaterialsmeltingfromglaciersarespectacularlyinteresting
364
Julie Cruikshank
toscientistsaswellastolocalpeople,iffordifferentreasons.Intheir subsequentinvestigationsofYukonicepatches,archaeologistsandYukon FirstNationshaveformedpartnershipsandcommunitymembershave participatedinarchaeologicalfieldresearch.Culturecampsorganized byChampagne-AishihikFirstNationaroundthethemeoficepatches haveincludedvisitingscientistswhomeetwithlocalstudents.InAlaska, archaeologistsarenowusingglobalpositioningsystem(GPS)models to“prospect”forpotentialmeltingsitesthatmaybereleasingsimilar evidenceontheothersideoftheSaintEliasRange. Morewidelypublicizedwastheaccidentaldiscovery,bysheephunters inAugust1999,ofayounghunter’sremains,amaninhislateteensor earlytwenties.Hewasmeltingfromaglacierinthetraditionalterritories ofChampagne-AishihikFirstNation(alsowithinAlsek–Tatshenshini ProvincialPark).Hisdeathwasprobablyaccidental.Hiswovenspruce root hat, part of his squirrel fur robe, some tools (including a bone knifewithironstains),andapieceoffishhewascarryingwerepreservedwithhim.Hisrobe,radiocarbondatedat550BP,carriedtraces of spruce and pine pollen and some fish scales. Local elders named himKwädayDänTs’ínchior“LongAgoPersonFound”inSouthern Tutchonelanguage. Fromthebeginning,therewasclosecooperationamongscientists andmembersoftherelevantChampagne-AishihikFirstNation,without whichthescientificresearchcouldnothaveproceeded.IftheNative American Graves and Repatriation Act structures such relationships in the United States (see Brown 2003; Starn 2004; Thomas 2000), partnerships are being carefully negotiated as part of implementing recentlandclaimsagreementsinCanada.MembersofthisFirstNation were interested in learning more about this potential ancestor and howhistravelsoverlapwiththeiroralhistories.Theyagreedtoallow scientificinvestigationsthatincludedFirstNationrepresentativesonthe managementteamandtoletthematerialstravelforscientificanalysis. Scientists are especially interested in how this rare evidence—flesh and hair and as well as bones—might contribute to understandings ofhealth,nutrition,anddisease,butalsowhathisperfectlypreserved hat,tools,andfragmentsofrobemayrevealabouteverydaylifefrom thattime(Beattieetal.2000).Asagreed,hisremainswerereturnedto thecommunitywithinaspecifiedtimeframe.TheFirstNationhelda funeralpotlatchforhimonJuly21,2001,andhiscrematedremains werereturnedtothelocationwherehewasfound.Radiocarbonand DNAtestingcontinue,butsofarDNAindicatesonlythattheyoung manhadcloserconnectionswithotherNativeAmericansthanwith
MeltingGlaciersandEmergingHistoriesintheSaintEliasMountains 365
populationsinAsiaorGreenland(Monsalveetal.2002).Botanistshave determinedmoreabouthisearlydietfrombonesamples(Dicksonet al.2004).Cross-borderconnectionsbetweencoastalTlingitandinland Champagne-Aishihik First Nations have been strengthened during communitynegotiationssurroundingthisresearchandthefunerary arrangementsforKwädayDänTs’ínchi. These events all received wide publicity for a short time—locally, nationally, and internationally, and in sources ranging from news media to scientific journals. In such circumstances, scientists and Aboriginalpeopleareencounteringconcrete,materialevidenceofthe past but they are also encountering each other at close range. Contemporary encounters fall into new transnational contexts—global climatechange,environmentalism,socialjustice,andscientificstudies ofhumanremains—andweseehowthesameevidenceproducesdifferent interpretations. The piece of bearskin presents scientists with possibilitiesoflearningaboutancientgrizzlypopulationsandprovides localresidentswithpossibleevidenceofanearlyancestorwhotraveled inthecentralicefields.Toolspouringfromglacierssuggestthathighlatitude, high-altitude landscapes were intensely shared by humans andcaribouforthousandsofyears.Eldersbornbeforetheturnofthe lastcentury,withwhomIworked,stillrememberedlargeherdsatthe beginningofthe20thcenturybeforetheydisappeared,andbiologists cannotpinpointthecauseoftheirdisappearance.Tellersdonotseparate thetoolsfromthetoolmakers:women,forinstance,speculateabout thecoastalwomanwhomayhavemadeKwädayDänTs’ínchi’scoastal hatorthegrandmotherwhomighthaveknittedhisinlandrobe.Sohis arrivalbothconfirmsoraltraditionsinthemindsoflocalpeopleand authenticatestheantiquityofsuchtravelbyancestors.Meltingglaciers arerevealingmaterialevidenceofinteresttoscientistsbuttheyarealso reinvigoratinglongstandingoralhistoriesabouttravelandtradenear theSaintEliasMountains.Again,questionsariseaboutwherestories toldbyscientistsandeldersconnectandwheretheyslideapart. Crucially,AthapaskanandTlingitoraltraditionsattributetoglaciers characteristicsratherdifferentfromthosediscoveredthroughscience. Glacierslongprovidedtravelroutesor“highways”thatenabledhuman connectionsbetweencoastandinterior.Glaciersaredescribedinmany narrativesascharacterizedbysentience.Theylisten,payattention,and theyarequicktotakeoffensewhenhumansdemonstratehubrisorbehave indiscreetly.Ihavebeenstruckbyhowpeoplewhospeakknowledgeably aboutglaciersrefertolistening,observing,andparticipatinginritualized respect relations (see also Anderson 2004). Such visions originate in
366
Julie Cruikshank
intenseengagementwithenvironmentmaintainedthroughmillennia, creatingwhatanthropologistTimIngoldcallsa“dwellingperspective” soprofoundlyrelationalthateveryoneunderstandshowhumansand naturecoproducetheworldtheyshare(Ingold2000:esp.153–156;see alsoBasso1996).Glaciallandscapesdescribedinoraltraditions,then, areintenselysocialspacesthatincluderelationshipswithnonhuman beings(likeglaciersandfeaturesoflandscape)sharingcharacteristics ofpersonhood. In this place, memories of the Little Ice Age are sedimented both inphysicalprocessesstudiedbyscientists(bandsofgrit,layersofice and rock, etc.) and in memories of long-term residents. Both kinds ofknowledgeareacquiredthroughcloseengagementwithaphysical environment.Duringthelastcentury,onediscourse(science)hasgained authorityandparkmanagers,ecotourists,andthegeneralpublichave adoptedconceptionsofglaciersasplacesof“rawnature.”Onceagain, glaciersseemtobeplayinganactiveroleinnegotiatingthemodern terrainofscience,history,andpoliticsinthesemountains. Narrativesaboutmeltingglaciersechothethreeinterpretiveframeworksidentifiedearlier,butalsoincorporatecontemporaryconcerns. Newnarrativesofenvironmentalchangeassociatedwithmeltingglaciers nowaddressglobalclimatechangeratherthanLittleIceAgeadvances. Stories about human encounters that once depicted Euro-American incursionsacrossglaciersnowspeaktoimplementationoflandclaims inthecontextofsocialjustice.Localknowledgeisagainbeingproduced innewcontextsandisassuminganexpandingroleintherhetoricsof comanagementpolicies.Intheremainderofthischapter,then,Ioffer snapshotsoftheserapidlychangingcontexts.
EnvironmentalChange FromtheAndestotheArctic,theenvironmentalchangeofconcern atthebeginningofthe20thcenturyisglobalclimate,symbolizedby visiblymeltingglaciers.Evidencemountsthatwarmingwillbeextreme at Arctic and Subarctic latitudes. Scientists may disagree about the magnitudeofgloballyaveragedtemperaturechangesorabouttherole ofhumansintheprocess,buttheyagreethatextremevaluesarebeing experiencedinarcticregionsandthatthatthiswillcontinue.Climate change is a global process, but has profoundly local consequences. Yukon First Nations, now completing land claims negotiations and engagedineconomicplanningaspartofself-governanceagreements, areraisingquestionsaboutregionalconsequencesforwaterlevels,forest
MeltingGlaciersandEmergingHistoriesintheSaintEliasMountains 367
yield,permafrost,wildlife,andhumanactivities.Theirpastexperience withclimatevariabilityevokesriskytimesandterritories(Cruikshank 2001). ThereisgrowinginterestinhowAboriginalpeopleandpolicymakers can work together on questions surrounding climate change and acknowledgementthatsomesolutionsmustcomefromlocallevels.Up close,though,consultationscanleadtoawkwardexchanges.Scientists, for instance, make a distinction between weather and climate. By definition,theytellus,climateisthestatisticsofweather,including measurementofmeans(meantemperature,ormeanprecipitation)and variance.Climatescientiststalkaboutpreciseandmeasurabledata— temperature,airpressure,precipitation,andwindspeed(Weaver2003). As anthropologists report from one collaborative study in northern Finland,oraltraditionsareunlikelytoprovidetransferable“data”to climatechangescientists,partlybecauselocalpeopleareoftenreferring to weather when they talk about environmental change. Memories passedonintheYukon,forinstance,attendtosummerwarmthfrom sun-drencheddaysorbitingcoldofdeeprivervalleysinwinter.People recallchillingborealwindsandnastyhailstorms.“Climateisrecorded,” IngoldandKurttilanotesuccinctly,“weatherisexperienced”(2000: 187).Knowledgeaboutweather,theypointout,cannotbetransmitted asasetofcustomaryprescriptionsorformulae;itaccumulatesfroma lifetimeofexperiencetraversingandinhabitingwell-knownplacesand isembodiedintacitknowledge. Climatesciencepresentsamorecomprehensivepicturethanweather. But similarly, oral traditions convey understandings that are more comprehensive than data. The two cannot always be conflated, but bothrevealagreatdealaboutthehumanexperienceofenvironmental change. One primary value of local traditions about weather is to deployauthoritativelocaltraditionsinproblemsolvingduringunexpectedweatherevents(McIntoshetal.2000).Adominantthemein theYukonconcernslivingwithuncertaintysurroundingbehaviorof glaciers—unexpectedadvances,violentsurges,catastrophicfloods,and accompanying weather variations. Another concerns travel: glacierfilledpassesbetweencoastandinteriorprovidedancienttravelroutes. Inonewell-knownstoryabouttwotradingpartnerscrossingglaciersto reachthecoast,onecoastalTlingitandtheotherinteriorAthapaskan, thedramaticconsequencescenteronanaccidentasthecoastalTlingit manslidesintoacrevasseandhispartner,knowingthathewillbeheld responsible,mustmakechoicesandconstructarescueplan.Narratives thatareusefulintimesofcrisisconcernproperrelationswithlandand
368
Julie Cruikshank
crystallize quick and timely social responses. Kwäday Dän Ts’ínchi’ probablylosthiswayinanunexpectedstorm,archaeologistsspeculate. Storiesnowassociatedwithhisappearance,hiscontributiontoscience, hisceremonialcremation,andhisreturntotheglacierwherehewas foundalsopointtopracticescrucialtomaintainingbalanceinamoral world.Scientistsmaynecessarilydistinguishenvironmentaldatafrom social history, but Aboriginal storytellers are just as likely to equate disastrouseffectsofenvironmentalchange(specificallypollution)with historyofcolonialismanditsimbalances,ratherthanviewingtheseas isolatablephysicalproblemsthatsciencemighthelp“fix.”
HumanEncounters Mylargerprojecttracestheroleglaciersplayinsocialimagination—in Aboriginal traditions but also in accounts left by Russian, Spanish, French,British,andU.S.andCanadianvisitorstothefarnorthwestin the18thand19thcenturies(Cruikshank2005).Theideaofencounter seems especially useful because of what it reveals about scale and subjectivity.Initially,actorsinthisregionwererelativelyfewandtheir motives,intentions,andimaginingscanbetracedpartiallyindiaries and reports, but also in orally narrated stories still told. As national dreamsflaredinthiscornerofnorthwestNorthAmerica,powershifted decisively. Morethanhalfacenturyago,CanadianeconomichistorianHarold Innis(1950)identifiedarcticandsubarcticregionsasfurnishingaclassic illustrationofthemodernisttendencytoconceptualizetimeasspatially laid out, mechanically segmented, and linear. Colonial projects, he observed,moveforwardbydevisingandreinforcingcategories—such asobjectivity,subjectivity,space,andtime.Oncenormalizedas“common sense,” these classifications provide a visual template for the annexation of territories and the subjugation of former inhabitants. Innis’sanalysisisespeciallyapthere.Ironically,alocationthatgathers muchofitsimaginativeforceasaplacewhereboundarieswerealways beingnegotiated(betweentradingpartners,betweencoastandinterior, betweenglaciersandhumans,andamongresidentsandstrangers)has nowbecomeaplacefestoonedwithboundariesratherthanstories.The internationalboundarywasalmostacenturyinthemaking,mapping, adjudication,andproduction(from1825–1915).Likelayersofanonion, successivetribunalsandcommissionsstrucktoresolvethethornyissue ofwhy,how,andwherethisboundarywouldbedrawn,demonstrate howanimagined“Nature”canbecomesweptintotheformationof
MeltingGlaciersandEmergingHistoriesintheSaintEliasMountains 369
nations,andhowdreamsofnationhoodbecomeembeddedinborders. Asothershavenoted,thesenationalboundariesweremoreformidable tonegotiatethanglaciers. Boundariespropagate.Fundamentaltorecenthuman–environmental historiesinthisregionisthetransformationofhuntingterritoriestoa naturepreserveinlinkedstepsthatdisenfranchisedindigenoushunters atthestrokeofapen.DuringWWII,theUnitedStatesbecameconcerned about a possible invasion by Japan through Alaska. They conceived theideaofamilitaryhighwayconnectingtheirdistantnorthwesterly territorieswiththenationalcore,anenormousoperationthatbrought 34,000workersnorthbetweenApril1942andDecember1943.Following overhuntingattributedtoU.S.militarypersonnelandCanadiancivilians duringthisAlaskaHighway’sconstruction,theKluaneGameSanctuary wasestablishedin1943.Newregulationsprohibitinghuntingwithin thesanctuary,includingsubsistencehunting,meantthatahunterwho killedasheepjusteastoftheboundarywasdeemedagoodprovider whereas someone who took a sheep a few feet west was subject to prosecution.WhenthoseboundariesweremodifiedtocreateKluane National Park in 1979, the region joined a national administrative parksnetwork.ThesubsequentlayeringofaUNESCO-designatedWorld HeritageSiteacrosstheU.S.–Canadianborderdrewtheregionintoan internationalagenda.AninternationalboundaryseverspeopleinAlaska fromrelativesinCanada;provincialandterritorialboundariesseparate familiesinBritishColumbiafromthoseintheYukon;andboundaries placedaroundProtectedAreasin1943,andaNationalParkin1979, lockedancestralterritoriesinbehindaboundary,orlockedpeopleout beyond a boundary, depending on point of view. A crucial problem forthoseseparatedbyboundariesishowtopassonknowledgeabout placestothosewhoneverexperiencedthem—hence,theirappearance inlifehistories.
LocalKnowledge Melting glaciers have generated partnerships among scientists and FirstNationsthatinevitablyenlivenlocaldebatesaboutknowledge. Internationally, there has been an explosion of interest in indigenousknowledgeor“traditionalecologicalknowledge”duringthelast decade.Yetthe“locality”ofsuchknowledgesometimesdisappearsas prescriptivemethodologiesbecomeenshrined.“Localknowledge”has becomeacommonsenseterminearly-21st-centuryrhetoric.Acronyms like TEK are ubiquitous in research management plans on topics as
370
Julie Cruikshank
diverseasfisheries,wildlifemanagement,andforestry,yetoftendepict local knowledge as static, timeless, and hermetically sealed within categorieslike“indigenous”inwaysthatreinforcethecolonialityof thatconcept. Theimplicationisthatoralsourcesaresomehowstable,likearchival documents, and that once spoken and recorded, they are simply there, waiting for interpretation. Yet ethnographic research clearly demonstratesthatthecontentoforalsourcesdependslargelyonwhat goesintothediscussions,thedialogue,andthepersonalrelationship inwhichitiscommunicated.Oraltestimonyisneverthesametwice, even when the same words are used, because, as Allesandro Portelli (1997: 54–55) reminds us, the relationship—the dialogue—is always shifting.Oraltraditionsarenot“naturalproducts.”Theyhavesocial historiesandacquiremeaningsinthesituationswheretheyareused,in interactionsbetweennarratorsandlisteners.Meaningsshiftdepending ontheextenttowhichculturalunderstandingsaresharedbytellerand listener.Ifwethinkoforaltraditionasasocialactivityratherthanas somereifiedproduct,wecometoviewitaspartoftheequipmentfor livingratherthanasetofmeaningsembeddedwithintextsandwaiting tobediscovered.Oneofanthropology’smosttrenchantobservations isthatmeaningisnotfixed,butmustbestudiedinpractice—inthe smallinteractionsofeverydaylife. Agrowingcritiqueoftheusesandabusesoftraditionalknowledge identifies several problems associated with uses of TEK. One is the underlyingpremisethatdifferentculturalperspectivesarebridgeable by concepts in English language (like “sustainable development” or “comanagement”)andwithinscientificdiscourse(MorrowandHensel 1992).Anotheristheideathatstatementsbyknowledgeablepeoplecan somehowbe“captured,”codified,labeled,andrecordedindatabases. Thirdisthegrowingevidencethatconceptsof“localknowledge”or “tradition”mostlikelytobeselectedinmanagement-sciencestudies usuallyreflectideascompatiblewithstateadministrationratherthan thoseunderstoodbylocalpeople(IngoldandKurttila2000;Nadasdy 1999). Scientists working on TEK projects have not been shy about naturalizingcultureasanendangeredobject,thenselectingdatathat effectivelyconflatesenvironmentalandsocialagendas(SeeRaffles2002: 152). Genderalsoplaysasignificantroleinlocalnarratives,athemeIhave exploredelsewhereatgreaterlength(CruikshankwithSidney,Smith, andNed1990).Iheardtheseglaciersstoriesfromelderlylocalwomen whoincorporatedthemintoaccountsoflifeexperienceandmadethem
MeltingGlaciersandEmergingHistoriesintheSaintEliasMountains 371
reference points for interpreting and explaining life transitions and genderedfamilyhistories.Theirinterestsandperspectivescontrasted sharplywithmasculinenarrativesofscienceandempirethatcharacterize somuchofthehistoricalliteraturefromthispartoftheworld.Kitty Smithandherpeerspaidattentiontothespecificitiesofeverydaylife andmadeglacierscentralimagesinstoriesthatgroundsocialhistories inwell-knownlandscapes.Nineteenth-centurynarrativesofimperial science,bycontrast,rarelymentionresidentsofinhabitedlandscapes other than fellow scientists and sponsors, and they virtually ignore localhistory.Thesefemalestorytellersclaimagencyandembedtheir knowledgeinnarrativeratherthanpresentingitaslocatable“data.” Inarcticglobalculturalflows,though,suchstoriedknowledgetends tobedisplacedandtoslideoutofgrandernarratives(seeBravoand Sörlin2002). Crucially, stories transmitted in northern oral traditions make no sharp distinction between environmental and social change and indeed take as axiomatic the connections between biophysical and social worlds. The modernist wedge partitioning nature from culture (reflected in TEK studies and databases) severs important connectionsthatAthapaskannarrativesexplicitlyaffirm.Theoverall effectofsegregatingenvironmentalsnippetsfromtheirsocialcontext inevitablysubmergessomememoriesandrecastsotherstofitdominant transnational narratives. Once again “indigenous data” is subsumed withinuniversalizinghierarchies.Whatisincludedandwhatisleftout isnotrandom(seeCookeandKothari2001;Cruikshank2004;FienupRiordan1990:167–191;Nadasdy2003:114–146;Scott1996). Modern science, as Sheila Jasanoff explains so concisely, achieves its accomplishments by abstraction. Scientific observations gain authority by being removed from local contexts and recombined in largerwholes—framedas“universal”—thatbothtravelandfrequently transgressboundariesofcustomandtradition(Jasanoff2004)Walter Benjamin’sfamousessay“TheStoryteller”eloquentlycapturesthissame distinctionbetweenknowledgeembeddedinstoriesanddisembodied information:“Information,”hesays,“laysclaimtopromptverifiability. Theprimerequirementisthatitappear‘understandableinitself.’...A storyisdifferent.Itdoesnotexpenditself.Itpreservesandconcentrates itsstrengthandiscapableofreleasingitafteralongtime”(Benjamin 1969:89–90;seealsoCruikshank1998). Ahistoricalapproachtomemoryrevealshowsociallysituatedbut alsohowporousknowledgepracticesare.Thefieldofsciencestudies demonstratesthatallknowledgeisultimatelylocalknowledgeandhasa
372
Julie Cruikshank
history.Theideathatameasurableworldcanbepriedfromitscultural mooringsalsooriginatedinlocalknowledgetraditionsthatexpanded withinEnlightenmentEurope.InthespacenowcalledKluanePark, scienceandoraltraditionarebothkindsoflocalknowledgethatshare acommonhistory.Thathistoryincludesauthoritativegainsforone kindofformulation—science—attheexpenseofanother.Since1960, whentheIcefieldRangesResearchProjectwasestablishedunderthe institutionalsponsorshipoftheArcticInstituteofNorthAmericaand the American Geophysical Society, the Saint Elias mountain ranges haveprovidedresearchsitesfornaturalandphysicalsciences,andnow forclimatechangestudies.Oneironicconsequenceisthataspartof current comanagement agreements, mandated by land claims and self-governanceagreementsinCanada,indigenouspeoplelivingnear parkboundariesarenowbeingaskedtodocumenttheir“traditional knowledge”aboutplacesfromwhichtheywereevicted60yearsago. Insuchinstances,itwouldseem,“ourflatteryof‘primalpeoples’and theirknowledge,inevitablydeemedtobetimelessandahistoricalcan beviewedasanactofimmensecondescension”(White1998:218).
EntangledNarratives Stories about glaciers in the Saint Elias Mountains, in constant and uneasyinterplay,contributetoatwo-centurydebateabouthumanity’s relationshipwiththenaturalworld.Regionalpoliticalandeconomic practices involved in setting aside protected areas (e.g., parks) now intersectwithglobalpractices(e.g.,scientificresearch)thatmakeclaims fromthesespaces.Themountainsandglaciersareagainbeingreinvented fornewpurposes—thistimeasahybridcomprisingmanagementtechniquesandmeasurementpractices,sometimescirculatingonInternet spaces. Just as narratives of Euro-American national dreams once normalizedpracticesofmappingandmeasuring,globalenvironmental narrativesnowfillthatrole.Theyhelptobringprimordialwilderness underthehumanprotectionofinternationalcommittees,likeGenevabased UNESCO, in which morally tinged stories of rational use and protectionallowglobalcommitteestosoberlyadjudicatelocalconcerns (seeAnderson2004).TheUnitedNations,centrallypositionedwithin internationaldebatesaboutindigeneity,appearsinmanyguises. TheUNESCOWorldHeritageListcategorizessitesgiventhisstatus intooneofthreecategories:“natural,”“cultural,”or“mixedproperties,” reassertingmodernistoppositionbetweennatureandlivedexperience. AsofApril6,2007,the830propertiesinscribedontheWorldHeritage
MeltingGlaciersandEmergingHistoriesintheSaintEliasMountains 373
Listincluded644sitesdeemedcultural,162classifiedasnatural,and24 ashavingmixedproperties.Theawkwardlynamed“Kluane/WrangellSaintElias/GlacierBay/Tatshenshini-Alsek”WorldHeritageSite,thefirst tocrossaninternationalboundary,hasbeenallocatedtothe“natural” WorldHeritageSitecategory,totheconsternationoflocalFirstNations. Breakingthebondbetweenpeopleandplacealonglinessoarbitrary asoneimaginedbetweenculturalheritageandnaturalenvironment marksadecisiverift(Giles-Vernick2002;Ingold2000). Thenaturewearemostlikelytohearaboutintheearly21stcentury is increasingly represented as marvelous but endangered, pristine or biodiverse.Suchdepictionstendtoexcludeotherwaysofseeingand makeitmoredifficulttohearorappreciateunfamiliarpointsofview (Franklin 2002; Slater 2002). Environmental politics have so normalized our understandings of what “nature” means that we can no longerimaginehowotherstoriesmightbesignificant.Asclaimsand counterclaimsmadeinnature’snameproliferate,areasdeemedtobe primordialwildernessarereimaginedasuncontaminatedbyhumans. Suchviewslargelyexcludeotherpractices,memories,conceptions,and beliefsofpeoplethatdonotmatchthisvision.Ever-narrowingsubsets ofnaturepushhumansoutexceptassubjectsformanagement-science toregulate. Indigenousvisionspassedoninnarrativesaboutglaciers(likethose aboutcaribou,forests,orrivers)seemuniquelyimportantbecausethey positionnatureandcultureinasinglesocialfieldandgraftcolonial andenvironmentalhistoriesontoolderstories.Theydrawconnections between relationships and activities on the land and proper social comportment.Theyproviderich,complexalternativestonormalized valuesthatnowconventionallyframenatureasaredeemableobject tobe“saved.”Alwaysinmotionevenwhentheyappearstatic,surging glaciersencompassboththematerialityofthebiophysicalworldand theagencyofthenonhuman,anddrawontraditionsofthoughtquite different from those of academic materialism (see Raffles 2002: 38, 181foradifferentlysituateddiscussionofthis).Theyaregroundedin materialcircumstancesbutalsocarryamultitudeofhistorical,cultural, andsocialvaluesthatslideawaywhentheyarerelegateduncritically to“nature.” Narrativerecollectionsabouthistory,tradition,andlifeexperience representdistinctandpowerfulbodiesoflocalknowledgethathaveto beappreciatedintheirtotality,ratherthanfragmentedintodata,ifwe aretolearnanythingfromthem.Rarelydoeithermanagement-driven studiesofTEKorenvironmentalistparablestapintotherangeofhuman
374
Julie Cruikshank
engagements with nature—diverse beliefs, practices, knowledge and everydayhistoriesofnaturethatmightexpandtheoftencrisis-ridden focusofenvironmentalpolitics.Whatlookssimilaronthesurfaceoften turnsouttohavedifferentmeaningsanddifferentaims.Codifiedas TEK, and engulfed by frameworks of North American management science,localknowledgeshiftsitsshape,withsentientandsocialspaces transformedtomeasurablecommoditiescalled“lands”and“resources.” Indigenouspeoplesthencontinuetofacedoubleexclusion,initially by colonial processes that expropriate the land and ultimately from neocolonial discourses that appropriate and reformulate their ideas. Environmentalistvaluesmaynowshapeourunderstandingsofnature (much as science or survey did in the past) but they, too, become entangledwithquestionsofjusticeworkingtheirwaythroughlocal debatesinnorthwesternNorthAmerica. SuccessivevisionsofSaintEliasMountains,continuouslyrecastto servepresentpurposes,becomeentangledwiththoseofcontemporary FirstNationswhosevisionsdeservemorespaceinsuchschema.Inthe GulfofAlaskawhereEuropeanandindigenousformsofinternationalism havebeenenmeshedfortwocenturies,physicalplacesandpeoplehave alwaysbeenentangled,andinthefuturetheyarelikelytobemore entangled than ever before. Local knowledge in northern narratives is about unique entanglements of culture and nature, humans and landscapes, objects and their makers. Material evidence of human history—from Kwäday Dän Ts’ìnchi, caribou pellets, or from the modifiedbearhide,maybenaturalizedasprobablegeneticevidenceof naturalhistory.Butmemoriescoveredbyappliquédlayersofsanctuary, park, and World Heritage Site are also being reenergized as human history emerges. The glacier stories I began hearing more than two decadesagomayoriginateinthepastbuttheycontinuetoresonate with current struggles surrounding environmentalism, indigenous rights,landclaims,nationhood,andnationalparks.Suchnarratives willundoubtedlycontinuetoleadentangledsociallives.
Note 1. The Oxford English Dictionary defines indigenous as “born or produced naturally in a land or region; native to [the soil or region]” and traces its earliestuseto1646.
MeltingGlaciersandEmergingHistoriesintheSaintEliasMountains 375
References Anderson,DavidG.2004.Reindeer,caribouand“fairystories”ofstate power.InCultivatingarcticlandscapes:Knowingandmanaginganimals in the circumpolar North, edited by David G. Anderson and Mark Nuttall,1–16.Oxford:Berghahn. Basso,Keith.1996.Wisdomsitsinplaces:Landscapeandlanguageamong theWesternApache.Albuquerque:UniversityofNewMexicoPress. Beattie,Owen,BrianApland,EricW.Blake,JamesA.Cosgrove,Sarah Gaunt,SheilaGreer,AlexanderP.Mackie,KjerstinE.Mackie,Dan Straathof, Valerie Thorp, and Peter M. Troffe. 2000. The Kwäday DänTs’ínchidiscoveryfromaglacierinBritishColumbia.Canadian JournalofArchaeology24:129–147. Benjamin, Walter. 1969. The Storyteller. In Illuminations, edited by HannahArendt,83–109.NewYork:Schocken. Beteille,Andre.1998.Theideaofindigenouspeople.CurrentAnthropology 39(2):187–91. Boyarin,Jonathan.1994.Remappingmemory:Thepoliticsoftimespace, edited by Jonathan Boyarin, 1–37. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress. Bravo, Michael, and Sverker Sörlin, eds. 2002. Narrating the arctic: A cultural history of Nordic scientific practices. Canton, MA: Watson PublishingInternational. Brown, Michael F. 2003. Who owns Native culture? Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversityPress. Clague, John J., and V. N. Rampton. 1982. Neoglacial Lake Alsek. CanadianJournalofEarthSciences19:94–117. Cooke,Bill,andUmaKothari,eds.2001.Participation:Thenewtyranny? London:ZedBooks. Cruikshank,Julie.1998.Thesociallifeofstories:Narrativeandknowledge intheYukonterritory.Lincoln:UniversityofNebraskaPress. ——.2001.Glaciersandclimatechange:Perspectivesfromoraltradition. Arctic54(4):377–393. ——.2004.Usesandabusesof“traditional”knowledge:Perspectives from the Yukon Territory. In Cultivating arctic landscapes: Knowing andmanaginganimalsinthecircumpolarNorth,editedbyDavidG. AndersonandMarkNuttall,1–16.Oxford:Berghahn. ——.2005. Do glaciers listen? Local knowledge, colonial encounters and socialimagination.Vancouver:UBCPress. Cruikshank, Julie, with Angela Sidney, Kitty Smith, and Annie Ned. 1990.Lifelivedlikeastory:LifestoriesofthreeYukonelders.Lincoln: UniversityofNebraskaPress.
376
Julie Cruikshank
Davis, Mike. 2001. Late Victorian holocausts: El Niño amines and the makingoftheThirdWorld.London:VersoPress. De Laguna, Frederica. 1972. Under Mount Saint Elias: The history and cultureoftheYakutatTlingit.3vols.SmithsonianContributionsto Anthropology,7.Washington,DC:SmithsonianInstitutionPress. Dickson,JamesH.,MichaelP.Richards,RichardJ.Hebda,PetraJ.Mudie, OwenBeattie,SusanRamsay,NancyJ.Turner,BruceJ.Leighton,John M.Webster,NikiR.Hobischak,GailS.Anderson,PeterM.Troffe, andRebeccaJ.Wigen.2004.KwädayDänTs’ìnchí.TheHolocene14 (4):481–486. Fagan,Brian.2000.Thelittleiceage:Howclimatemadehistory,1300–1850. NewYork:BasicBooks. Farnell, Richard, P. Gregory Hare, Erik Blake, Vandy Bower, Charles Schweger,SheilaGreer,andRuthGotthardt.2004.Multidisciplinary investigations of alpine ice patches in Southwest Yukon, Canada: Paleoenviromentalandpaleobiologicalinvestigations.Arctic57(3): 247–259. Fienup-Riordan,Ann.1990.Eskimoessays:Yu’piklivesandhowwesee them.NewBrunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress. Fortuine,Robert.1989.Chillsandfevers:Healthanddiseaseintheearly historyofAlaska.Fairbanks:UniversityofAlaskaPress. Franklin,Adrian.2002.Natureandsocialtheory.London:Sage. Gibson,JamesR.1983.SmallpoxontheNorthwestCoast,1835–38. BCStudies56:61–81. Giles-Vernick,Tamara.2002.Cuttingthevinesofthepast:Environmental historiesoftheCentralAfricanrainforest.Charlottesville:University PressofVirginia. Grove,Jean.1988.Thelittleiceage.London:Methuen. Hare,P.Gregory,SheilaGreer,RuthGotthardt,RichardFarnell,Vandy Bower, Charley Schweger, and Diane Strand. 2004. Ethnographic andarchaeologicalinvestigationsofalpineicepatchesinSouthwest Yukon,Canada.Arctic57(3):260–272. Hornborg,Alf,andGísliPálsson,eds.2000.Negotiatingnature:Culture, powerandenvironmentalargument.Lund,Sweden:LundUniversity Press. Ingold,Tim.2000.Theperceptionoftheenvironment.London:Routledge. Ingold,Tim,andTerhiKurttila.2000.Perceivingtheenvironmentin FinnishLapland.BodyandSociety6(3–4):183–196. Innis,Harold.1950.Empireandcommunications.Oxford:Clarendon. Jasanoff,Sheila,ed.2004.Statesofknowledge:Theco-productionofscience andsocialorder.London:Routledge.
MeltingGlaciersandEmergingHistoriesintheSaintEliasMountains 377
Krajick,Kevin.2002.Meltingglaciersreleaseancientrelics.Science296 (April19):454–456. Kuzyk, Gerald W., Donald, E. Russell, Richard S. Farnell, Ruth M. Gotthardt, P. Gregory Hare, and Erik Blake. 1999. In pursuit of prehistoric caribou on Thandlät, Southern Yukon. Arctic 52 (2): 214–219. Latour,Bruno.1993.Wehaveneverbeenmodern.Cambridge,MA:Harvard UniversityPress. McClellan,Catharine.2001[1975].Myoldpeoplesay:Anethnographic surveyofsouthernYukonTerritory.2vols.MercurySeries,Canadian Ethnology Service Paper, 137. Ottawa: Canadian Museum of Civilization. McIntosh,RoderickJ.,JosephA.Tainter,andSusanKeechMcIntosh, eds.2000.Thewaythewindblows:Climate,historyandhumanaction. NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress. Macnaghten, Phil, and John Urry. 1998. Contested natures. London: Sage. Minority Rights Group. 1994. Polar peoples: Self-determination and development.London:MinorityRightsPublications. Monsalve,M.Victoria,AnneC.Stone,CecilM.Lewis,AllanRempel, MichaelRichards,DanStraathof,andDanaV.Devine.2002.Brief communication: Molecular analysis of the Kwäday Dän Ts’ìnchi ancientremainsfoundinaglacierinCanada.AmericanJournalof PhysicalAnthropology119:288–291. Morrow,Phyllis,andChaseHensel.1992.Hiddendissension:Minoritymajorityrelationshipsandtheusesofcontestedterminology.Arctic Anthropology29(1):38–53. Nadasdy,Paul.1999.ThepoliticsofTEK:Powerandthe“integration” ofknowledge.ArcticAnthropology36(1–2):1–18. ——.2003. Hunters and bureaucrats: Power, knowledge, and AboriginalstaterelationsintheSouthwestYukon.Vancouver:UniversityofBritish ColumbiaPress. Niezen,Ronald.2000.Recognizingindigenism:Canadianunityandthe internationalmovementofindigenouspeoples.ComparativeStudies inSocietyandHistory42(1):119–148. Portelli,Alessandro.1997.ThebattleofValleGiulia:Oralhistoryandthe artofdialogue.Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress. Raffles,Hugh.2002.InAmazonia:Anaturalhistory.Princeton:Princeton UniversityPress. Scott, Colin. 1996. Science for the West, myth for the rest? The case of James Bay Cree knowledge construction. In Naked science:
378
Julie Cruikshank
Anthropological inquiry into boundaries, power and knowledge, edited byLauraNader,69–86.London:Routledge. Slater,Candace.2002.EntangledEdens:VisionsoftheAmazon.Berkeley: UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Smith, Eric Alden, and Joan McCarter, eds. 1997. Contested arctic: Indigenouspeoples,industrialstates,andthecircumpolarenvironment. Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress. Starn,Orin.2004.Ishi’sbrain:InsearchofAmerica’slast“wild”Indian. NewYork:W.W.Norton. Stavenhagen, Rudolfo. 1996. Indigenous rights: Some conceptual problems.InConstructingdemocracy:Humanrights,citizenship,and societyinLatinAmerica,editedbyElizabethJelinandEricHershberg, 141–160.WestviewPress,CO:Boulder. Thomas,DavidHurst.2000.Skullwars:KennewickMan,archaeologyand thebattleforNativeAmericanidentity.NewYork:BasicBooks. Weaver, Andrew J. 2003. The science of climate change. Geoscience Canada30(3):91–109. WhiteRichard.1998.“Usingthepast:HistoryandNativeAmerican studies.InStudyingNativeAmerica,editedbyRussellThornton,217– 243.Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress.
f o u r t e e n
The Terrible Nearness of Distant Places: Making History at the National Museum of the American Indian Paul Chaat Smith
O
nSeptember21,2004,20thousandredpeople,andscoresofdignitariesincludingthepresidentofPeru,celebratedtheopening oftheNationalMuseumoftheAmericanIndian(NMAI).Itoccupies the last open space on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., that boulevardofbrokendreamsthatservesasthemainstreetoftheUnited States,andisjustastone’sthrowfromtheU.S.Capitol.Theprojectcost nearlyaquarterofabilliondollarsandtook14yearstocomplete. Itisunlikelythattherewilleverbeanythinglikeitagain.Itishard to imagine where the dollars, resources, and attention would come fromtobuildacomparablemuseum.Andifsuchamuseumisbuilt someday(andGodknowsIhopeitis,andsoon),it’sasafebetitwill neverachievethepopularityoftheNMAI.Duringitsfirstthreemonths, themuseumhadmorethan800,00visitors,andifthatpacecontinues, morethan4millionpeoplewillvisitinthefirstyear.Ifonlyhalfthat showup,itwillstillmakeNMAIoneofthemostpopularmuseumsin theworld,anditslocation,betweentheCapitolandtheAirandSpace Museumwouldseemtoguaranteethosekindofnumbersnomatter whatpeoplefindinside. NMAIisgoingtoinfluencehowindigenousexperienceisunderstood onamassiveandprofoundlevelwithaudiencesofallkinds,andperhaps mostimportantly,howindigenouspeopleourselvesviewourpresent
379
380
Paul Chaat Smith
circumstances. I also believe it is incumbent for curators at public institutions to share information about their work and how it was assembled.Forthatreason,Iofferthisaccountofhowonerelatively smallpieceoftheNMAIprojectcametogether.Iamstillcomingtoterms myselfwiththisexperience,andthisaccount,obviouslyasubjective one, is limited in many important ways. For example, most of the crucialdecisionshadbeenmadeyearsbeforemyarrival,andNMAI’s corporatecultureissomewhatsecretive.However,Iwasatthecenter ofthethingthatIfelt—andcontinuetobelieve—wastheraisond’être forthemuseum’sveryexistence. I’vedecidedtotellthishistorythroughanarrativefocusingonkey documents written (mostly by me) during the construction of the exhibit.Ithinkthiswillbemoreusefulthanifthisentirechapterwere justaboutwhatIthoughtnow,orhowIrememberedeventsfromtoday’s perspective.It’llhelpkeepthingshonest.Acentralthemeoftheexhibit isaboutthenatureofhistoryitself,soIthinkitappropriatethatIapply thosestandardstothisdocumentaswell.It’sastoryofextraordinary possibilities,brilliantmistakes,realizeddreams,andultimatelyfailed revolution.It’sastoryabouttheagitpropopportunityofalifetime. Dr.BruceBernsteinphonedmeupinApril,2001,andaskedmeto comeinforaninterview.Hesaidtheyhadsomeprojectsthey’dlike metoconsiderworkingon.IhadmetBruceinNovember1999atthe NativeAmericanArtStudiesAssociationinVictoria,BritishColumbia. Heknewmywork,andmadeclearhewasshoppingforNativetalent, andeventalkedaboutbuildinganIndiandreamteam.Iwasallears. ThoughIhadnotheardfromsincethattime,itdidn’tsurprisemetoget hiscall.IknewGeraldMcMaster,anartistturnedbigtimebureaucrat in Canada was working at NMAI, and broadly speaking we were in thesamecamp.Ihadalsocomeinforatwoday“vettingsession”in December2000tohelpthecuratorialstaffthinkaboutcontemporary issuesforoneofthepermanentgalleries.IfiguredIwasontheirradar, andthey’dcallmeoneofthesedays. The interview was at the Museum’s Cultural Resources Center in Suitland,Maryland,sevenmilesoutsideWashington,D.C.,andwaswith Bruce,Gerald,andDr.AnnMcMullen,whowouldbecome,andstillis, myboss.Itwascasualandfriendly,andtheyallsaidnicethingsabout mywork.Theyofferedmeavaguejobthathadtodowithhelpingout CynthiaChavez,thecuratorfor“OurLives,”thecontemporaryissues gallery,andpossiblyservingasaneditorfortheexhibitionscripts.I toldthemIwouldbedelighted,andsaidIconsidereddoingwhatever onecouldforNMAIasnothinglessthanapatrioticobligation.
MakingHistoryattheNationalMuseumoftheAmericanIndian 381
The federal government’s hiring process takes forever, so I didn’t actually start until late August, 2001. In the meantime, I continued workingasanofficetemp. IhadfollowedNMAIsincethe1980s,whenIlivedinNewYorkand visitedtheMuseumoftheAmericanIndianinupperManhattan,and alsofollowedthebattleoverwhethertheSmithsonianInstitution(SI) orRossPerotortheAmericanMuseumofNaturalHistorywouldtake overthecollection.ImovedtotheD.C.areain1991andgotupdates on NMAI from friends who would be in town to speak at an NMAI eventorhearthelatestonwhohadbeenhiredorfired.Iwasn’tthat connected;itwasjustpartofthelandscape.Aftertheopeningofthe NewYorkfacilityin1994,andespeciallyaftertheopeningoftheCRC in1998,Iheardmoreaboutthedirectionthingsweretaking.Itdidn’t soundthatgood,orthatunexpected.Forthosereasons,Iwaspleasantly surprisedatwhatIfoundwhenIfinallybeganworkinginSuitland, untilIstartedlookingattheexhibitionplans. TheplanformetoworkwithCynthiaChavezhadneveractually beenseriouslydiscussedwithCynthia,whofeltshedidn’tneedanother curator but, instead, more research assistants. We tried it out for a monthandahalf,andtookonetriptogethertotheKahnawakereserve inCanada,butpartedamicablyafterthat.AnnandBrucedidn’tknow whattodowithme,soIhadlotsoftimetoreadexhibitionplanning documents and think about the museum. This was during the days andweeksfollowingSeptember11,2001(9/11),asorrowfultimefor all of us living in Washington. I began putting my thoughts into a lengthy critique, addressed to Ann, Bruce, and Gerald. It was called Love and Theft: Notes on Sixteen Weeks at the National Museum of the AmericanIndian.IwroteabouthowimpressedIwasatwhathadbeen accomplished,especiallywiththeunprecedentedmoveofthecollection fromNewYorktoMaryland.AndIwroteaboutmyreactiontoone ofthekeydocumentsthatguidedtheexhibitions,theNationalMall MuseumExhibitionPlan(SmithsonianInstitutioninternaldocument, 1997).Itfeaturedimagesofancientduckdecoys,oneofthetreasures ofthemuseum,andforthatreasoneveryonecalleditTheDuckBook. Afterreadingthat,andanexhibitionnarrativethatimaginedmajestic doorsopeningintoanindigenousUnitedNations,Iwroteaboutbeing sodepressedthatIwenthomeandmedicatedmyselfwithgin.From LoveandTheft: Anyway,IdraggedmyselfbacktoSuitlandthenextmorningandkept reading,andasIdidmyviewofthisjourneytothelandoftearsand
382
Paul Chaat Smith
gingraduallychanged.I’vestartedtothinkofthesedocumentsasour versionofthePentagonPapers.Thosewereaninternalhistoryofthe Vietnam War ordered by the top brass in the midst of the war, who, likeeverybodyelsewantedtoknowhowthehellwegottothispoint. Before,IthoughtahandfulofessentialistIndiangatekeepershadsetthe majorpoliciesandintellectualboundariesofNMAI,andthatitreflected anarrowandpartisanpointofview.(Priorto9/11Iroutinelyreferred tothemasthe“Taliban.”)Idon’tthinkIhadgrandillusionsaboutthe broaderpointsofviewoutthere,understand,butIthoughtitwasalot betterthanthis. NowI’vecometobelievewhattheDuckBookandrelateddocuments, as well as the current exhibit plans for NMAI, constitute nothing less than a detailed mapping of the North American Indian intellectual worldatthismoment;callit“TheWayWeThinkNow.” Here’sthewayIreadthemap:Essentialismisthecoinoftherealm; Indianintellectualshavelargelyabdicatedtheirroleofprovidingcritical perspective and building an environment that encourages debate and rigorousscholarship;andwe’vefailedtoprovidedirectiontothisnew andtroublesomeideaoftheNativeVoice.Atthesametime,weshould rememberit’sreallyjustasnapshotofamomentintime,andneweditions come out frequently. In truth, this map is unfinished and its borders contested.Thisisgoodnews,sortof.TheproblemisNMAI’smandate isbroadandinsanelyambitious,andfurthermoreweareinstructedto carry out this work “in consultation, collaboration, and cooperation” withIndianpeople.Tome,thismeans,amongotherthings,wemustbe reallygoodatreadingareally,reallybadmap. Why is all this so hard? Partly because Indian intellectuals have not constructed a framework with defined meanings for terms like sovereignty,ornation,orbuiltaconsensusonhistoricalnarrativesor onanyofthebroadthemestheNMAI’sexhibitsmustengage.Compare this to African Americans and you can see what I mean. There are a million controversies in African American studies, but there is also broadagreementonatleastthefactsandusuallymuchconsensuson thenarrativesoftheslavetrade,themiddlepassage,Reconstruction,and thecivilrightsmovement.Thatblackshaveanintellectualinfrastructure andwedon’tshouldn’tbeasurprise:thereare30millionblacksand1 or 2 million Indians. African Americans have much more of a shared experiencethatIndians. AndthestoryofIndiansandthecontinentismuch,muchharder.It’s theelephantintheAmericanlivingroom.Hardernotsimplybecause it is unpopular and in contradiction to what the United States wants
MakingHistoryattheNationalMuseumoftheAmericanIndian 383
tobelieveaboutitself,butbecausethestoryissofantasticallycomplex and largely unknown. Slavery in the Americas and the Holocaust in Europe are hardly simple events and processes to describe, but NMAI is addressing events pre-contact to the present day in Indian societies throughout the hemisphere. The best non-Indian historians know instinctively to stay away from this topic. Indian intellectuals for the mostpartremainendlesslyfascinatedinwhatanthropologiststhinkof Indians,romanticism,andstereotypesandlessinterestedintakingon thelargerquestions.Thisischanging,Ithink,andIwasencouragedat therecentAAApanelofIndiananthropologists.ButIstillmaintainthis infrastructuredoesnotyetexist,andthisgoesalongwayinexplaining why the NMAI is using the tools, language, and methodology of anthropologytodesignexhibitsofsocialhistory.It’sallweknowhow todo. BecauseIamarguingwedon’thaveacommonlanguageyetforthis discussion,Ithinkit’simperativetobeasspecificaspossible,soIwill nowturntotheApacheandtheSeminoleandhowIfeartheNMAIis abouttoembarrasstheminfrontofmillionsofpeople,dayafterday,for ten,possiblyfifteenyears.
Idiscussedhownaïvethetribalhistoriesreadtosomeonefamiliarwith howferociouscontemporarytribalpoliticsare,andwhatitwouldmean toallowourApachecollaboratorstodeifytheirlatetribalchairman, whostoodaccusedofskimminglargeamountsfromthetribe’scasino andachievednationalattentionforseekingpermissiontostorenuclear wasteonthereservation.IthoughtWendellChinowasagreatstory, butitcouldn’tbepresentedinaone-sidedway,curatedbyhisrelatives, withoutvoicesfromotherApaches.AbouttheSeminole,Iarguedthat tohavenoreferencetoAfricansbeingcentraltotheexistenceofthe Seminolewasuntenableandwouldgetusintrouble. IalsofeltthemuseumwaslockedinamomentofDanceswithWolves (1990,OrionPictures,181min)andpost-Quincentennialtriumphalism: “Asbadluckwouldhaveit,thediscussionsthatledtotheDuckBook tookplaceduringtheearly1990s,aperiodthatfuturehistorianswillnot regardasourfinesthour.Wekneweverythingbackthen.Itwasallvery wetalk,youlisten,onlyproblembeingnobodywaslisteningexcepta bunchofNewAgefreaks,whichactuallywasablessingwhenyoulook atthekindofthingsweweresaying.Likesimilarmanifestos,saythe ChicagoIndianConferenceof1961,theIndiansofAllTribesAlcatraz in 1969 declaration, the Port Huron statement of 1962 or President Reagan’s 1984 ‘Morning in America’ TV ads, they are instructive as
384
Paul Chaat Smith
snapshotsofamoment.Yes,theyareartifactswhowillbestudiedfor generations,buttheyareanythingbuttimelessintheirmessage”(Love andTheft). Icontinuedinthisvein: Thingschange.Duringthelate1960sNegroesceasedbeingNegroand in the space of just a few years became black. By 1970 Negroes had disappeared, they were history. In 1965 Clyde Warrior was bound for glory:HewasourMalcolmX,ourshiningredprince,smartandboldand fearlesswhowillforeverberememberedkickingbackintheOklahoma sunonachaiselounge,wearingthattackyHawaiianshirtandleafing throughTheNewRepublic.Heknewmoresongsanddancesthanperhaps anyIndianofhisgeneration,noneofwhichhewasinclinedtoshare withwhitefolks.Hedidn’thatewhitepeople,hejustthoughtitwasn’t reallyanyoneelse’sbusiness.ClydeWarriorneverlivedtosee1969so we’ll never know how he might regard our project. It’s possible, who knows,maybehewouldhavecomearoundtotheideaofaSmithsonian museumrunbyIndians(well,kindasorta)featuringdancesperformed fortourists,excuseme,visitors.Butifyouhadtoguess,basedonwhatwe knowofhim,apredictionthatIndiansatthedawnofthenextcentury wouldchoosethispathmorelikelywouldhaveprovokeddisbelieving laughterordisgust.Afterall,heonceworkedatDisneyland,dressedin buckskinandfeathers,paddlingacanoethroughthemanmaderiversof Anaheim.Probablynotthebestofmemories.In1972theOglalaSioux Tribesponsoredasundance.Theychargedadmissionandsoldbeer.Five yearslaterthingshadchanged,andanySiouxsuggestingsuchathing likelywouldhavebeenbeaten,jailed,ordispatchedtotheSouthDakota insaneasylum. Letmebeclear.IdonotthinkthetermNegrowillmakeacomeback. I don’t expect that Indians en masse are going to adopt the ideas of ClydeWarriororthatdespitemybestefforts,“jukeboxspiritualism”will suddenlybethenewcatchphraseinWindowRock.AndIdon’tthink NMAIhostingdancesin2004isthesameasDisneylandpayingClyde Warriortopaddlecanoes.Mypointisthatideasgoinandoutoffashion intheIndianworldlikeanywhereelse.Ifavoteweretakentoday,Indians inNorthAmericawouldapprovedancesatNMAIbyalandslide.Ifavote weretakentenyearsfromnow,whoknows?Andinanycase,asizable minorityofIndianshavealwaysbeenuncomfortablewithdancingfor visitors.Ithinkwe’reonstrongergroundtolookforwaystoreflectthis ambivalenceinourpractice.WeshouldanticipatethatIndianopinions will change over time. In the early 90s I remember hearing stories of
MakingHistoryattheNationalMuseumoftheAmericanIndian 385
thingslikemandatoryattendanceatmorningreligiousceremoniesfor people whose only crime was attending a two-week performing arts workshopinBritishColumbia.Individualsgotcarriedawaysometimes, and their zeal to restore balance earned them derisive nicknames like “Smudgasaurus.” You don’t hear stories like that so much these days. Wecanlaughaboutitnow.It’snobigdeal,noworsethanwhitepeople in bell bottoms or black people in dashikis. Humans get carried away sometimes,it’soneofourgreatcharms.Thethingis,weeventuallyput themoodringsandpetrocksinadrawersomeplaceanddon’tenshrine themasguidingprinciplesfortherestofourlives. Thisisthedilemma.Wewanttotellourstories,butwedon’talways knowourstories.Thisisamongthemostchallengingissuefacingthe museum.DavidPenneytalksoffourarchetypaltypesofstories:comedy, tragedy, romance, and ironic satire and how they apply to historical narratives.“Itseemstomethatwhennon-NativeAmericansconsider theirnation’shistoryinrelationtoIndians,theytendtotellstoriesof comedy and tragedy. ... Native American people often speak in terms ofironyandromantictranscendence.Arethereotherwaystostructure narratives from a Native American perspective? I am not qualified to say,thoughIsensethatIndiancuratorsandartistsarestrugglingtofind them.”1 How do we explain why the first thing most tribal museums do is buildpreciselythekindofexhibitstheNMAIstandsinoppositionto? Do we think the people on these reservations are morons? That they don’t know how to involve their tribal historians? My theory is they are smart people who know exactly what they are doing. They build dioramasbecausepeopleintheircommunitywanttoknowhowthey livedlongago.Thedioramasaretackybecausetheycan’taffordtohire IndustrialLightandMagic. IfourjobistopresenttheNativeVoiceunfiltered,Ibelieveistheword Bruceusedinonememo,theNativesarenaturallygoingtosay,okay, wellwhichNativesarewetalkingabout?Whochosethem?Or,often,it willbewhochosethem?!ThefirstOLmeetinginKahnawaketookplace beforetheMohawkCouncilofKahnawake.Thesecondonetookplace attheculturalcenter,andallbutoneortwoofthepeopleatthismeetingrefused,onprinciple,toevenvoteintheelectionsfortheMCK.The unstatedNMAIfieldworkprotocolisalwaysgoingtosaylet’stalktothe regularfolks,thetraditionals,whichisokay.Butwecan’thidebehind theprocessandsaywedidnochoosingofourown.Andwebetternot say it doesn’t make much difference which Kahnawake Mohawks we talkto,becausewhichKahnawakeMohawksyoutalktomakesallthe
386
Paul Chaat Smith
differenceintheworld.Here’sthething:asDavidPenneyhaspointed out,“identity,byitself,doesnotbestowknowledgeorwisdom.”Knowledgeandwisdomandcultureandhistorydon’tcomestandardwithany particularterritoryoranyone’sparticularDNA.Theyjustdon’t.
And I expressed my dismay at the lack of any broad historical narrative: Therehastobeasubstantialpieceofthemuseumdevotedtothedisaster of contact. Not guilt trips, not just first-person accounts, but a factual, narrative overview. No matter how excellent the OP gallery mightturnout,thatwon’tbeenough.Ifwedon’tdirectlyaddressthis inastraightforwardandseriousway,wellIdon’tknowhowtoendthat sentence,becauseIdon’tseeitasevenachoice.Ithinkpeoplewouldbe amazedandbaffledtoknowthatatthispointthispresentationsimply doesn’texistintheexhibitionplan.Iguaranteeyouthatjustwillnotfly. Italsomakesnosensetohaveglancingreferencestoboardingschools andlossoflanguagewithoutabroadercontext.Talkingaboutboarding schoolswithoutstraightforwardlyaddressingcontactislikecomplaining aboutthelunchmenuatAuschwitz. Weshouldprovidebasicinformationondiseaseandwarfaresettlement, andatimeline.Itshouldbefactual.Itshouldtalkaboutallthatwedon’t know.Itisthemostimportantexhibitintheentirebuildingandithas tobereally,reallygood.Whathappened?Thisisthemainthingpeople wanttoknow.Becausepeopleintuitivelyunderstandthatwhatthey’ve read and heard and seen is not true. Because people know this is the greatuntoldstoryoftheAmericas.
IhadnottoldanyoneIwaswritingthecritique,andIdelivereditto Bruce,Ann,andGeraldonDecember12,2001.Thetimingcoincided withtheincreasingdissatisfactionbycuratorialandothersaboutthe historygallery.Severalmonthsearlier,NMAIhadrejectedthedesign forthegallery,believingthedesignersjustdidn’tgetIndiansorthe content.Now,itwasbecomingapparentthattheproblemwasn’twith thedesign,butwiththeexhibitioncontentitself.PartlybasedonLove andTheft,Bruceinvitedmetojoinagrouphewasputtingtogetherto revieweverything.InadditiontoBruce,itincludedGerald,Ann,and PatsyPhillips,theCherokeeprojectmanager. Wemetovertheholidays,oftenforentiremorningsandafternoons. Thefocuswasalmostexclusivelyonthetribalhistories,whichwere adensecollectionofaccountsthatweresomehowtobeturnedinto
MakingHistoryattheNationalMuseumoftheAmericanIndian 387
exhibits in an area the size of a large bedroom. At this point, there weregoingtobe12tribesinthehistoryspace(whichhadtheterrible workingtitleofOurPeoples,whichtragicallybecamethefinalnamefor theexhibit).Asawriter,Ifeltitwasnearlyimpossibletomakethese accountscoherentbecausetheyrequiredsomuchexposition,andthat’s beforeconsideringtheproblemofmakingthemvisuallycompelling. ThisresultedonsomethingAnnandI,wholedduringthediscussions, wouldlabelarevolution,andadocument(authoredbythetwoofus) remarkableforitscandorandself-criticism.ThecovermemofromBruce said“weconcludethatOurPeoplesisbroken,andifworkcontinues onitspresentcoursethegallerycannotsucceed.Asyouwillsee,we believethisisnotamatterofanythingassimpleasindividualfailings: theyareinsteadcollectiveandinstitutional.Theyposehardquestions thatstrikeattheverycoreofourwork:HowisourMuseumdifferent? Isitdifferent?Whoareweaccountableto?Whosestorieswillwetell? Whodecides?Whatishistory?Theattacheddocumentistheproduct ofthosediscussions,andIaskyoutoreaditcarefully.”Itwascalled “LookingforaShowcaseforIndianHistory,”afteraheadlinefroma NewYorkDailyNewsarticletapedonAnn’sofficedoorfromthe1980s, whenthemuseumitselfwasupforgrabs.Wedistributedourmanifesto onJanuary11,2002. Aboutthetribalhistories: What we may have now as events and stories about them are in the natureofepigrams:brief,potentiallypithyexcerptsdrawnfrommuch largertexts.Epigramsareaformofshorthandandweknowthatepigrams cansometimesworktoconveymuchlargerstoriesortexts.Butother thingswhichwemightthinkofasepigrammaticareinsteadtooshort and too densely embedded in their larger texts to be comprehensible withoutamountainofcontextandexplanation.Theymaybetruisms, butwhocanreadtheirtruth?If“OurPeoples”oranyotherexhibition includedasanexhibittextthequote“Iwillfightnomoreforever,”who would get it? How much would have to be added in terms of culture andhistorytomakethismakesense?HowmuchNezPerceculture,how much Nez Perce history, how much Indian history, how much Chief Joseph biography, and how much U.S. military policy would have to be added to make this make sense to our museum visitors? Does this or any other epigram do justice to the story it abbreviates, to history, or to culture? When we strip it all away and let a quote speak for an event,deprivingitifitstemporalandspatialcontextanditsideological framework,what’sleft?
388
Paul Chaat Smith
And: Now,wefaceachoice.Doweforcethesetribalhistoriestobecomethe result we wished for, to make connections where none really existed, toeditthemnotforcoherenceorclaritybutinordertotellastorythe communitiesdidnotactuallytell?Wecoulddoit.Wecouldprivilegethe storieswelike,theonesthatfitourideaofwhatweexpectedtohear(of whattheyshouldhavetoldus)anddroptheotherones,toshoehornthe KiowastorysoitcomplementstheCherokeestoryandfitsintotheguns andhorsesthemeandbecomesthepleasingnarrativeweexpected. Ordoweletthestoriesstandastheyare?Intheirspareliteralness, theyallowanypersontocreatetheirownRashomonofIndianhistory, and,perhaps,thisisagoodthing.However,inreviewingtheframers’ intentweneversawanyonecallingforthatlevelofinscrutability.Itis onethingtosayit’sokayforsomestoriestobemysteriousandclearto acertainIndianaudienceandconfusingtoothers,buttoacceptthisas theruleratherthantheexceptionwouldrepresentaradicalshiftand doomthegallery’sefforttospeakclearlytovisitors.Withinthescoresof “epitomizingevents”aretalesofwonderandheroismandepictragedy but they compete with many more that are likely to appear baffling, dense,incomplete,andboringtobothIndianandnon-Indianvisitors. Ifwethinkthebafflinganddulltaleswillturnintodiamondswiththe rightcontext,wearebacktotheveryrecontextualizingwe’vetriedto avoid. Inretrospect,webelieveacentralmistakewasthefailuretosufficiently interrogatetheideaofhistoryitself.It’sthere,intheearliestdocuments throughthelatestones,includingDaveWarren’s1997mentorstatement, but like other key theoretical guideposts history has been lost along theway.Evenifwecouldfindawaytodojusticetothestoriesinthe tribalhistories,tosomehowgivethemthemeaningtoourvisitorsthey presumablyhavetothosecommunities,westillfacebigproblems. Forexample,althoughweoftenusethewordmultivocality,inpractice thetribalhistoriesarespeakingforalltribalmembers.PartoftheNMAI dissertationoutlineincludedanassumptionthattribeshadaconsensus, asharedviewoftheirhistory.Insomecasesthisistrue,inothercasesit isnot.IftheOPteamhadmetwithadifferentgroupofKiowastwoyears earlier,oreventhesamegroup,itseemsunlikelytheywouldhavecome up with an identical list of key events or that they would have spun theminthewaystheyhave.Itisprobablemanyoftheeventswould bedifferent,tolddifferently,andmeantdifferentthings.Afterall,each storyisspunoutoftheideologyofthemoment—andtheevent—ofits
MakingHistoryattheNationalMuseumoftheAmericanIndian 389
telling.Iftheconsensusactuallyexists,thatis,ifthereisawidelyshared viewofhistory,that’sokay.Butwhatifitisn’t?Andhowdowetellthe difference?Thewayitiscurrentlyconstructedisasifalltribalmembers havethesamewayoftellinghistoryandthesameunderstandingofwhat itisabout.Theimagined“Kiowa-ness”wekeeptalkingaboutrepresents somepresumedconsensualfabricofhistoryandcultureagainstwhich weplacesingular,individualnarrativeswhicharemadetofitintothat consensus.Often,though,theyareindividualvoicescryingforcontext. Wecouldincludetextthatmakesclearwhowemetwith,when,andsay theseopinionsdon’tnecessarilyreflectallKiowas,butwouldthatreally work?WethinkitwoulddojustwhattheNMAIhasalwayswantednot todo,whichishavethemuseummediatingtheexhibitinsteadofgiving Indiancommunitiestheirchancetofinallyspeakforthemselves. We think by making the gallery about history itself, to foreground themessagethathistorieshaveagendas,historieschange,historieslie, historiescanliebutbetruetotheirtellers,toevenspecificallypointout thisverygalleryhasanagenda,thevisitorwillbeabletolookatthetribal historiesinmorecomplexways—beyondtheframeofthemirror—and notsimplyseethemas“true”ornot.Sothevisitorwouldthinkaboutthe ideasofconsensus,andseethatunderstandingtheprocessofhowthe storiesweregatherediscrucialtounderstandingthestoriesthemselves. Inaword,transparency.Weproposeanintroductionthatexploresthe issuesofhistoryinageneralway,discusseshow“Indianhistory”only cametogetherafterEuropeancontact,andtouchonthemyriadofissues thatinvolve“tribalhistory.”
Andaboutthebiggestmissingpieceofall: WhataboutthemissingnarrativesofabroaderIndianhistory?Itisclear thatfromtheveryearliestdiscussionsaboutthemuseumtherehasbeen a consensus (a real one) that it must include the broad narratives of contact:colonialism,disease,warfare,andsoforth.Wehavelookedat addingakindof“metanarrative”togoontopof,oraround,orthrough thetribalhistoriesasonesolution.Intruth,weverymuchwantedthis tobetheanswer,tokeepthetribalhistoriesmoreorlessasoriginally envisionedandaddanewcomponent.Intheend,however,wefeltit wouldbeanoverlaythatwouldnothelpilluminatethetribalhistories. Wethinkitwouldbeaquickfixthatwouldnotreallyfixanything. Weproposesomethingelse.Wehaveyettonamethisbeast.Itisn’t ametanarrative,ornarrative,ortimeline,orhistory,orfilter,butitis partly all those things. At present this organizing core is made up of
390
Paul Chaat Smith
fivethemes:Origins,Destruction,Resistance,Accommodation,Revitalization.Withinthosethemeswillbethemissingnarrativesandthekey events from the tribal histories. Events from tribal histories might fit inseveralcategoriesatonce.Thethemesexplicitlyincludeprecontact events, so that the “destruction” might be one tribe against another in 1100, or “resistance” might be one tribe fighting another in 1750. Theconnectionsbetweenobjects,tribalstories,andbroadernarratives willbeinfusedwiththenotionofthatmakingsenseofhistoryrequires interrogation of history. We don’t know what that looks like exactly, butwehavesomeideas.Whatwedoknowisthatweneedtobecome complete—and active—partners in assisting Indian people in telling theirhistories,andtobringtobearallofourexperienceinmuseums, exhibits, interpretation, cultural presentation, and representation. Our Peopleswillstillincludetribalhistories,butthesemustchange.Because thewholeoftheexhibitionwillbedifferent,theinterconnectionsofthe partswillalsobedifferent.
Thepaperendedonanoteofoptimismthatcapturedhowthisgroup IwouldnametheGangofFivefeltatthistime.Brucewouldcallitthe bestworkhe’dbeenpartofallyear. ItisimportanttorecallthattheoriginalframersofOurPeoplesbelieved thebroadernarrativesthattoucheveryNativepersonwouldflowoutof thetribalhistories.Itseemstousveryunlikelyanyconceptwouldhave beenapprovedthatfocusedexclusivelyon18communitiesanddidnot producethe“Indianhistory”thathasbeenatthecoreofNMAIfromits verybeginning.Creatingagallerythatmettheapprovalof60Indians (thatwouldbe12communitiestimesfivepeopleeach)buthadlimited relevancetothebroaderIndiancommunitythatNMAIisaccountableto wouldmeanfailingtomeetoneofourmainobjectives.Thatimagined exhibition is still a dream, but we are closer to achieving it than ever before. We believe the lessons from Our Peoples merit additional study and reflectionandhavemajorimplicationsforworkthroughoutCuratorial andtheentiremuseum.Welookforwardtosharinganddeepeningour understandingoftheselessonswithourcolleagues.
Well,lifebeingwhatitis,thepeoplewhohadsopainstakinglyassembled theaccountsthatwetrashedwithsucheloquenceweren’ttookeenon sharinganddeepeninganunderstandingofanythingexcepttheirown defensiveness. I can’t really blame them: The mostly young, mostly
MakingHistoryattheNationalMuseumoftheAmericanIndian 391
white research assistants had worked extremely hard for years on thisandfelttheyweretheheartandsoulofNMAIbecauseoftheir relationshipwith“thecommunities.” Afewmeetingstookplaceinwhichwetriedtopersuadethemof ourwayoflookingathistoryandsoforth,butthatdidn’treallygo anywhere. One really good thing did happen, however. Bruce gave mepermissiontorecruitsomeonefromoutsidetoworkwithmeon developingthecentralcore,andIknewjusttherightperson. IhadmetJoleneRickardinThunderBayataconferencein1994,and wehadbeencomradeseversince.ShecamefromafamilyofTuscarora patriots,andwedisagreednearlyasmuchasweagreedonthings.We had never actually collaborated on a project before, but I knew she wasn’tjustbrilliant,andnotjustanexceptionalconceptualartistand photographer,buthadalsospentthe1980satmajorMadisonAvenue advertising firms working as a creative director. For the first time in severalyears,shehadnomajorprojectslinedup,havingjustcompleted amajorexhibitioncalledAcrossBorders:BeadworkinIroquoisLife.She signedoninFebruary,andIbroughtherdownafewweekslatertotalk toBruce,Ann,Gerald,andPatsyaboutthatexhibit.Ibelieveditwas animportantmodelbecauseitincludedIndianscholarship,leading non-Indianscholars(shehadfourcocurators,allwhite,andallexperts inthetopic)andpeoplefromtheso-calledcommunities. OnFebruary19,2002,Iissueda“statementofintent”thatdeclared whatwethoughttherevampedgallerywouldlooklike. Whatreallyhappened? FortheAmericas,thisquestionhasneverbeensatisfactorilyanswered. Theusualrepliesarepunchlinesandcartoons,amnesiaanddenial,or notquitebelievabletalesofparadiseandconquest,generalsandnatives. Itisnotaquestionseriousadultsaskoutloud,becauseaskingitisproof of naiveté or bad manners, yet it preoccupies Americans—north and south—allthesame.ThecontinentisfilledwithIndian-namedstreets andrivers,corporationsandsportsteams,andmountainsandcities.This untoldpastiseverywhere,inthelandscapeandtheairwebreathe,and it’snotevenpast,andweallknowit.Confusingly,millionsofIndians are still here too, living all over the place: in cities, jungles, suburbs, intheshadowofpyramidsandshoppingmalls.Everywhereyoulook, thereitis,askingthesamequestionfewaskbuteveryonestillwonders about.Whathappenedhere?Whatreallyhappened,andwhy? ForNMAI,thissimple,devastatingquestionisthekeyreasonforthe museum’sexistence.Itmayhavetaken12years,butwiththereimagined
392
Paul Chaat Smith
Our Peoples gallery NMAI finally accepts the challenge of the most profound,mostignored,andmosturgentquestionofthehemisphere. In the past five weeks, like the NMAI itself and amnesiac, conflictaverse Americans everywhere, we have danced around the issue of what those larger narratives actually are. Our five discourses (origins, destruction,resistance,accommodation,revitalization)offeredawayto think about the narratives but didn’t tell us what they are. Time ran out, and eventually the question was called. What exactly are those narratives everyone, including us, talks so knowingly about but never quitedescribe? We conclude they are the biggest story never told: the rise and fall and rise of the Americas, the ways America changed Europe, Europe changedAmerica,astoryfeaturingIndiansasactorsontheworldstage andnotmerelyvictims.Itisastoryofchangingworldsandhowpeople managedthatchangeindreadful,surprising,ingeniousways.Howthe BlackDeathinEuropeledtoadesperatesearchforcodthat,evenmore thangold,explainsColumbus.Howhisjourneyledtothegreatestmass humanextinctioninhistory,andthecountlesswaysIndianssurvived andtriumphedinthefaceofadversity.ItisastorywhereIndiansare partners in global markets, savvy diplomats, and eager consumers of newtechnology.Itbringsintofocusahemispherethatbeforecontact was outrageously diverse, deliciously complex, endlessly fascinating, andonethatwouldbecomeonlymoresowitheverypassingcentury. ItisastorywithIndiansatthecenterbutalso,bydefinition,relevant toeveryvisitor,whoseidentityandpersonalhistoryisshapedbythose events.Weargueunderstandingthishemisphereandyourplaceinitis impossiblewithoutinvestigatingthecentralityoftheIndianexperience. Weargueitchangedeverything,itchangedyou.Further,weadvisevisitors thatjustabouteverythingyouknowaboutthisstoryiswrong.Thatgoes forredpeople,too. Wewillprivilegebeautifulstoriesandobjectsandruthlesslyeditout themediocreones.Weconspiretodazzleandamaze,andnotdazzleand amazesomemythicalIowafamilybutthetoughest,mostjadedcritics wecanfind:eachother.Thisstoryissoextraordinary,soimportant,so differentthanwhatpeopleexpectandthinkand,yet,atthesametime preciselywhatourvisitors,especiallyourIndianvisitorsarehopingfor; finally,tolearnabitaboutwhatreallydidhappen. We’regoingtotellthem.TodosoOurPeoplesmustbecomethemost exciting, the most controversial, the most moving and talked about exhibition in Washington. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum currently holds that position, and we pay them our highest
MakingHistoryattheNationalMuseumoftheAmericanIndian 393
compliment by declaring today our ambition to put them in second place.
Sigh.Iwassomucholderthen,I’myoungerthanthatnow...anyway, it was still a time of great promise. During the spring and summer, JolenemadefrequenttripstoWashington.WemetwithAnnMcMullen andDr.GabrielleTayacmostoften,sometimeswithBruceandGerald althoughtheywerenotusuallyavailable. Iwasbeginningtohavedoubtsaboutthefivediscourses,andwanted tofindawaytoavoidlabelinganyparticularpieceofthecontentasone thingoranother.Forexample,gaming:Forsomepeopleitisresistance, for some it is destruction. And, anyway, I had always felt there was somethingfalseaboutthemanyway.Wethoughtabouthangingbig bannersoverthegallery,namingeachdiscourse,andlettingvisitors decidewhattocallthestoriestheyencountered. Also during this time, Ann had been formally named curator for thegallery,andmostofhertimewastakenupwithfixingthetribal histories.Shehadnotbeenveryinvolvedbefore,soitwasamassive tasktodeterminewhathadbeendonealready,whattheworkwasbased on,andwhattodoaboutit. Mainlywejusttalkedalot.BynowIhaddevelopedtwoprinciples forwhatwehadstartedcalling“TheBigStory”:(1)MostIndiansdon’t knowtheirownhistory;and(2)MostIndianshavebadtaste.Thefirst seemedobvioustome,thesecondevenmoreso.Iwantedtointroduce theideaofhistoryitselfassomethingwehadtofightfor;itwasnever justthereforustoknow,andthenotionthatweallcarriedonthese wonderfulintactdeepnarrativesofourpastseemedtobelikesomuch colonialbullshit.And,second,ofcoursemostpeoplehavebadtaste.I wastakingaimattheideayougooutintooneof“thecommunities” andaskpeoplewho’dneverthoughttwiceaboutmuseumexhibitry to design exhibits. My other principles included The Simpsons as an appropriatemodelforTheBigStory’sepistemologicalapproachbecause theysuccessfullyentertainedourSIdemographic(everybodyfromkids whocan’ttalkorreadtotheveryold,allraces,andverysmartpeople andverydumbpeople).Whoelse,Iasked,hadpunchlinesinvolving EubieBlakeorAdlaiStevensonorNoamChomsky?Thiswaspartofa themethatarosefromaJimmieDurhamlineabouthowyoualways havetomakeworkforpeoplesmarterthanyourself.IfeltSIhadelitist ideasaboutaudience,andtheykepttellingmetheaveragevisitorhada seventhgradeeducation.Thismeant,toSI,thatallthecontenthadto beunderstoodbythisaveragevisitor,ratherthantheSimpsonsmodel
394
Paul Chaat Smith
thathadsomethingforeveryone.AndInevergotananswerwhenI askedwhycan’touraudiencebeliketheHolocaustMuseum’s,which wasalwayspackedwithvisitorswillingtoreadlonglabelsandspend entireafternoonsthere. One part of NMAI’s design process ruled that you couldn’t begin thinking about what it would look like until you had an abstract, conceptualmodeloftheexhibit.JoleneandIalreadyknewwewantedan artinstallationaestheticandfelthamstrungbythisapproach.Shewould sneakinideasaboutahundredbuffalorobes,orawalloftreaties. Firingthedesignfirmin2001meanttherewasnomoneyleftforan outsidedesigner,sowewaiteduntilthenewdesignercameonboard. WhenVerenaPierikdidbeginwork,allofhertimewastakenonthe tribalexhibitsformostof2002.LynnEmiKawaratani,onloanfrom another branch of SI, helped out. These two would prove to be the perfectdesignersforwhatJoleneandIhadinmind. Thephysicaldesignforthegallerycametogetheroverthespaceof justafewmonthsinlate2002andearly2003.InDecember2002,I madeapresentationtoJoleneabouthowwemightshowvisitorsthe waysthatcontactchangedeverything,andIputthisonawhiteboard. Itwasreallyboring.Sheerasedit,andsaidwhataboutawallofgold. Thatturnedthingsaround,andweusedthisapproach,whatVerena called“repetitionwithdifference,”throughoutthegallerytoemphasize howuniquetheparticularexperiencesofredpeopleweredependingon timeandplace.Wechosehundredsofprecontactfigurines,favoringthe onesthatlookedAfricanandAsian,toemphasizehowdiversetheplace wecalled“1491”actuallywas.Thegoldcrystallizedourbeliefthatthe galleryhadtofocusondispossession.Massivediversity.Massivewealth. Redgoldturningintomoney,thenintodozensofswords.Acolumnof fire.Awallthatarguedyoucouldnotspeakaboutcolonialisminthe Americaswithoutspeakinginthesamebreathaboutdisease,showing howthebiologicalcatastrophewasthegreatesttragedyinhistoryand changedeverythingthatfollowed.Awallofguns.Awallofbiblesin Indianlanguages.Andawalloftreaties.JoleneRickard’scontributions cannotbeoverstated:Shewasmoreresponsiblethananyoneelsefor thewaythegallerylooks,andequallyresponsiblewithmeforwhat itsays. Just weeks after finally resolving all the components, I presented theworktothemuseumdirectorinMarch2003.Heapprovedit.The following18monthsweremostlyanightmarebecausewedidn’thave enoughtimeorstaffortalenttoselectoracquirenearlyathousand objects,designthespace,andwritethescript.Themuseumhadbecome
MakingHistoryattheNationalMuseumoftheAmericanIndian 395
aphysicalreality,andeverydelaybecameacrisis.Jolenebeganworking onthecentralcoreofthe“OurLives”gallery,soshewasn’tasavailable asbefore.InNovember2003Ilostcontrolofthe“ChurchandState” walls,partlybecauseIwasneversuremyselfwhatweshouldactually sayinthelabels. Forallthat,weachievedmostofourvision.Atthesametime,the installations were crammed into a space half the size of one of the museum’s two gift shops. It got lost. There wasn’t room to stage it correctly.Worse,bigchunksofitweren’treadyatopening,sothepress wrotestoriesabouthowweignoredgenocide.Thefinalpiecesweren’t completeduntiljustbeforeChristmas. WefailedtodisplacetheHolocaustMuseumasthemostpowerful andemotionallycompellingmuseuminWashington.Weactuallynever evencameclosetotheexperienceIimaginedinapieceIwroteinearly 2003calledNotDarkYet: Up past the curved walls and their beautiful weapons and books you canseethewallofnames,thistoochanges,onenamemorphinginto another,othersneverquitecomingintoview,otherswithonlypartof thenamereadable.It’slikethey’refloatingoffintoheaven,althoughdo Indians believe in Heaven? Anyway, that’s what’s watching over us as stumblethroughfivecenturiesofthishistoryalmostnobodyknows. Silver,blue,andgold.Yougetupfromtheevidencethingysothisvery intenseguycanaskitsomethingorother,andswingbyforonelastlook atthatcoolEskimogunwiththewalrusbonetrigger,andfinallystep insidetheglow. It’snotwhatyouexpectatall.Theairfeelscharged,andinsidethe mother ship is a storm, and you’re standing in the middle of it. The storm moves across the walls in front of you and you remember that time in Nebraska back in 1975 when you stood on Interstate 80 and nobody would give you a ride, and on that hot afternoon you could see thunderheads rolling across the sky from approximately forever, thunderbolts exploding inside clouds taller than mountains; thunder andrain,furyandchaos.Youalmostfeeltherainonyourtongue,and imagineacool,almostcoldbreezesweepingpastyou,sowelcomebut promisingfarmorethanjustrelieffromthehotNebraskasun. Thestormissobeautiful.Andsodangerous.Thingsthatarebeautiful anddangerous:storms,Eskimoguns,life,beadedBibles,fadedtreaties. But you are not in Nebraska, you’re in this Indian museum. And abovethestormallaroundyouareflashingimagesthatdancewiththe changingweatherandwallsthatarecoloritself,adanceofsilver,blue,
396
Paul Chaat Smith
and gold. The images are all from now, and from all over the globe. The storm has its own soundtrack, rhythmic, propulsive, industrial, likesomethingdreamedupbyoneofthoseoldguysfromtheNative AmericanChurchandDr.Dre.Theyimagesappearanddisappearasthe storm does its terrifying thing. It’s all Indians, all the time, right here rightnowin2004,inthebiggestcitiesandsmallesttowns,livinglarge, pickupsnexttotipis,guerillasinajunglewithAK-47s,businessmenin threepiecesuits,doublewidetrailersonabackroad,stripminesinthe desert,banktellersandTVweathergirls,tourguidesatthepyramidsin Mexico,ahundredkidsrunningforthegoldinanall-IndianOlympics, scenesofpowerlostandwon,wealth,poverty,andlife.Silver,blue,and gold.Raysofhope,shaftsofsunlight,boltsoflighting,revealingimages ofstruggleandloss,andsurvival. TobeIndianistoliveinahurricane,24/7.TobeIndianistoknow the past really does live in the present, and that 2004 is maybe not so different than 1804. They’re both good years to be Indian, and a good time to be alive in a world that is always beautiful, and always dangerous. When you leave the gallery, at the end of a short hall, you see a window.Outsidethewindow,closeenoughtotouch,isthewhitedome oftheU.S.Capitol.
TwohoursbeforetheopeningonSeptember21,Ispentanhouralone inthespace,soflawed,sobeautiful,sopowerful,andfelthumbledand proud.ButIalsorememberedane-mailfromAnnMcMullenduringone ofthemanytryingmomentsoverthepastthreeyearsthatquotedBruce Springsteen:“Isadreamalieifitdon’tcometrue/orisitsomething worse?”
Note 1. SeePenney’sTheChangingPresentationoftheAmericanIndian:Museums andNativeCultures,59.Seattle:TheNationalMuseumoftheAmericanIndian andtheUniversityofWashingtonPress,2000.
Afterword: Indigeneity Today Mary Louise Pratt
A
sIwrotethesewords,inthefirstdaysoftheyear2006,EvoMorales, anAymaracocafarmer,tradeunionist,andpoliticalleader,hadjust beeninauguratedasBolivia’sfirstindigenouspresident.InMexico,the Zapatistashadlaunched“LaOtraCampaña”(“theothercampaign”), analternativetoathree-partypresidentialcampaignthat,theysaid, offerednorealchoices.IntheUnitedStates,frontpagesreveledinthe breakingscandalofcorruptWashington,D.C.,lobbyistJackAbramoff defraudingIndiantribesoftensofmillionsincasinoprofitsbyposingas theiradvocate.Weeksbefore,ayoungMapucheprofessoratHarvardhad organizedaconferenceinChileonindigenousmedia,bringingtogether MapucheculturalworkersfromChileandArgentinawithindigenous scholars from the United States and Canada. The event was a first; meanwhile,lawyersinChileweretryingtoliberate20Mapucheleaders imprisonedforyearswithouttrialfortheirroleinlandclaims.Around thesametime,theUnitedStates,Australia,andNewZealanddemanded revisionsoftheUNDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoplesso thattheprincipleofself-determinationwouldspecificallyexcludethe righttoterritorialsecessionorfullindependence.1Since1990,half-adozenLatinAmericanstateshaverewrittentheirconstitutionstodefine themselvesasmulticulturalandpluriethnicsocieties.Nonehavemade goodonthepromisesofsuchrecognition;thelanguageisthere. Evidenceaboundsthatthehistoricalagenciesofindigenouspeoples allovertheplanetareexpandingandevolvinginnewdirections,posing newchallengesandleavingoldercoordinatesbehind.Inmanyplaces indigenousandtribalpeoplesareexperiencingacceleratedencroachment aschecksonprofit-drivencorporateactivitiesdissolve,andpressureson space,ecology,andresourcesbeardownwithanintensifiedruthlessness
397
398
Mary Louise Pratt
andaggression.Manycollectivitiesfindthemselvesmorevulnerable nowthantheywere30yearsago.Atthesametime,thecommunications revolutionhasbroughtnewwaysofclaimingagencyandjoiningforces. TheDeclaracióndeQuitoin1991wasawatershedinthisregard.Produced byaconventionofindigenousleadersheldinconnectionwiththe1992 ColumbusQuincentennial,itwasoneofthefirstdocumentsproduced byacoalitionofindigenouspeoplesfromacrossthehemisphere.The Quincentennial catalyzed indigenous peoples and indigenous issues onanewhemisphericandplanetaryscale. Thechaptersinthisvolumebearwitnesstooldrelationshipsundergoingpermutations,andnewagentsandtheatersofactiontakingform. Iftheydemonstratenothingelse,thechaptersconfirm,forbetteror worse,thegenerativepowerofthecategoryindigenousincontemporary geopolitical theaters. As an analytical instrument, the chapters also show, indigeneity brings into focus key relationships, conflicts, and formsofcollectivityatworkintheworldtoday,whetherornotthese areidentifiedasindigenous.Indeed,thetermilluminatessituationsin whichitappliesawkwardlyorbadly(Tibet,India,Minnesota,Botswana, etc.) as well as situations in which it has always “belonged” (Chile, Oklahoma, Washington, New Zealand, Nunavut, Australia, Bolivia, etc.).
OnPrior-ity In English, the cluster of generic descriptors used to refer to indigenouspeoples—indigenous,native,aboriginal,firstnations—allrefer etymologicallytoprior-ityintimeandplace.2Theydenotethosewho were “here (or there) first,” that is, before someone else who came “after.” This of course makes the terms relational and retrospective: socialgroupsbecomeindigenousoraboriginalornativebyvirtueof therecognitionthatsomeoneelsearrivedinaplaceandfoundthem or their ancestors “already” there. Ironies abound here. Although partyA(theindigenous)aremarkedashaving“prior-ity”inrelation topartyB(theinvaders),whatinfacthaspriorityisB’s(theinvader’s) temporality. It is only with reference to B’s temporality that A was “already”there.UntilBarrivedbearingadifferenttemporalframe,A wasmostlikelynotthefirstsubjectonthescene,butthe“last,”thatis, themostrecentlyarrived.Certainly,untilthatmoment,Awasliving atemporalnarrativewhoseprojectionintothefuturedidnotinclude B.YetA’srelationalstatusas“indigenous”dependsontheperdurance ofthatprior,nonrelationalself-identity.Thisperduranceiscommonly
Afterword:IndigeneityToday 399
encodedas“survival,”thefailuretodieoffordissolve.Theprocessof becoming indigenous, as Linda Tuhiwai Smith eloquently explains, doesnotendwhenoneacquiresthelabel.Itbeginsthere.Indigeneity forhernamesanongoing,nonteleologicalprocessofbecoming,selfcreationandself-determination,thelivingoutofacollective’sbeing intimeandplace. Therelationalnucleusofindigeneityexplainsthefactthat“indigenous”israrelyifevertheprimaryidentityofindigenouspeople.One isfirstMaori,Cree,Hmong,Aymara,Dayak,Kung,Quiché,orAdivasi, andoneclaimsindigeneitybyvirtueofthat(temporallyandsocially) prior self-identification.3 In this sense, the fact of being who one is hassemanticpriorityovertherelationallinkbetweenAandB.Atthe same time, as an umbrella category, indigeneity enables historically and geographically separated peoples to recognize each other and collaborate.PreciselybecauseitreferencesB’stemporality,itgenerates agenciesandintereststhatBmustrecognize,andmustrecognizeas separateanddistinct.Thesecomplexitieswerealreadyapparentin1562, some30yearsafterPizarro’slandinginCajamarca,Peru,whenseveral hundredAndeanindigenousleadersmetandaddressedapetitionto theSpanishcrown.Theirlonglistofdemandsincludedthisone: “Que se nos guarde nuestras buenas costumbres y leyes que entre nosotroshahabidoyhay,justasparanuestrogobiernoyjusticiayotras cosasquesolíamostenerentiempodenuestrainfidelidad.” (May our good customs and laws be retained that among us have existed and exist suitable for our government and justice and other thingsthatwewereaccustomedtohavinginourtimeofasinfidels).4
The“us”inthispassageisacollectiveAmerindiansubjectbroughtinto beingbytheSpanishinvasion.Thatsubjecthereassertitsprior-ness: we“haveexistedandexist.”Thatsequenceofverbtensesmarksthe historicalwatershedoftheEuropeaninvasion,fromthepointofviewof theinvaded(albeitintheinvader’slanguage,perhapsalreadyseizedasa linguafrancaamongthenewlyconstituted“indigenous”).Theemergent Amerindian“us”assertsitselfasasubjectspecificallyofculture,law, history,andthefuture:“Maywekeepthegoodlawsandcustomsfrom ourtimeasinfidels.”Thisdemandforcontinuitywiththepastismade inamoraluniversealreadyacknowledgedtoberadicallyaltered.Two wordsinparticularspecifythealteration:buenas,(good),andinfidelidad (thestatusofinfidel).TheAndeanspeakersdeploythebifurcatedaxes of Christianity—good–evil, Christian–infidel—inserting themselves,
400
Mary Louise Pratt
perhapsonlystrategically,intotheChristianmoraluniverse.Soitis that in the very act of demanding continuity with the preconquest world,theyconstitutethemselvesas“other”totheirprior,preconquest selves.Atthesametime,bycallingforretainingpriorcustomsandlaws, theysituatethemselvesoutsidetheSpanishlegal,political,andsocial universe. The sentence claims, for instance, that in them, for them, “infidelity”cancoexistwithgoodness.
TheComplexityProblem Althoughourconferencetitlenamedindigenousexperienceasitsobjectofstudy,wetendedtogravitateawayfromexperience,towardthe questionofwhether“indigenous”wasacoherentorusefulanalytical category. The more skeptical papers (Nyamnjoh, Baviskar, and Yeh) thatquestionedtheself-privilegingpowerofindigeneityattimeswere sidelined. The liminal cases (like the Hmong studied by Schein, or theBolivianmusiciansBigenhoaccompanied),inwhichthelogicof indigeneityworkedonlytoapointremainedintriguing.Someimportant andpainfulaspectsofcontemporaryindigenousexperienceremained on the edges of our field of vision, or outside it: trauma, addiction, suicideandinvitationtosuicide,criminalization,religionandreligious violence,gender,andsex,sex—theunrelentingtransgressivenessofthe eroticthatleavesnoboundaryuncrossed. Itwasoverdeterminedthatourdeliberationswouldbeginandend withtheclaimthatindigeneitytodayismuchmorecomplicatedthan peoplethink.Weperformedthealwayslegitimatingscholarlygestureof presentingcomplicatedtruthagainstignoranceandreductiveideology. Thisgestureinforms,oftenenchants,butitalsoleavesthingspretty much in their place. Demonstrating complexity does not require or demandnewwaysofthinking.Itseemsunbearablethatthisshould bethemostscholarsareabletodo.Whereelsemightweendup?Is thereawaytograspindigeneitynotasaconditionbutaforce?How mightthefertilityorpotencyofthinkingandknowingthrough(i.e., bymeansof)theindigenousbeapprehended?
Generalization AsthePeruvianexamplecitedaboveremindsus,theconceptofthe“indigenous”hasaprivilegedhistoricallinktoEuropeanexpansionismof the16ththroughthe19thcenturies.Thisexpansionproducedwhatone mightcallatemplateorschemaofindigeneity,asetofnarrativeelements
Afterword:IndigeneityToday 401
thatareseenashavingwidespreadapplicability.Theyaccountforthe habitualconjugationofthetermindigenouswiththetermplight.Itseems possibletoidentifythesalientelementsofthistemplateorschema: 1. Unsolicitedencounter.Thecollectiveindigenoussubjectcomesinto beingonthereceivingendofanencounteritdidnotseek.Pizarro waslookingfortheIncas,buttheywerenotlookingforhim.Cook waslookingforlandsintheSouthSeas,butnoonetherewaslooking forEngland.Thereis,thus,notareciprocalcrossingofpathsbut, instead,anencountererandanencounteree.Theideaof“priorness”or“ab-originality”isproducedatthemomentofencounter. Itcannotpreexistit. 2. Dispossession. In the schema, the dispossession takes the form of conquest and settler colonialism. More generically, becoming indigenous means losing control of one’s land base and being obligedtosellone’slabor.Theactsofconquestanddispossession mean that equivalence between encounterer and encounteree is impossible.Thisbecomesallthemoreobviouswhenexploitationis broughtintothepicture.Intheschema,theencounterersconscript thesurpluslaboroftheencountereesandexploititfortheirown enrichment.Theserelationsaresustainedbyco-optationandviolence. Dispossession does not always succeed, of course. Groups aresometimesabletofightitofforescapetohighergroundasin westernGuatemalaortheLacandonforest.Thesecircumstances,if anything,makeoneevenmoreindigenous.Theindigeneity,inother words,liesinthescriptratherthaninwhatactuallyhappens. 3. Perdurance. Exploitation, like indigeneity itself, is only possible whentheencountereeperduresandcontinuestoreproduceasaselfidentifyingcollectivity.Beingindigenousmeansnotbeingeradicated orassimilated.Relationsofexploitation,ironically,generatesupport forthisperdurance,sincetheexploitationisjustifiedbymarking offtheexploitedasadistinct,nonequivalentgroup. 4. Proselytization.Indigeneityisalsotheproductofreligiousencounter, againnotareciprocalcrossingofpaths(youworshipyourdeities andIworshipmine),butanasymmetricalengagementinwhich theencounterercondemnstheencounteree’sreligionandclaims entitlementtoconvert.Itisnotthecase,however,thatindigeneity evaporatesifconversionsucceeds.Thisispossible,butnotinthe leastinevitable.5 5. Unpayabledebt.Overtime,thecombinationofunsolicitedencounter,dispossession,andperduranceproducearelationofindebtedness
402
Mary Louise Pratt
between the ex-dispossessors and the ex-dispossessed, and indigeneity becomes the unfolding of that relationship. In other words,attheheartofthesocialformationsthatdevelopoutofthis historicalgenesisliesadebt,awrongthat—andthisisimportant— can be addressed but never righted. Racist paradigms affirming theinvader’ssuperioritymaydenyorjustifythewrong,butthey cannot,Ithink,makeitgoaway.Evenwhenthereisdenial,the debtresurfacesinthesubjunctivemode:“Ifweweretorecognize awrong,therewouldbenoendtotheirdemands.”
Generativity Thisschemaisagiventhatpermitsgeneralization,characterizesawide rangeofinstances,andilluminatesthedivergencesinotherinstances. Itisalsoanobstacle,however.Itgeneratesapictureofindigeneitythat non-indigenousmodernshavelearnedtofindsatisfying,evenasthe livedexperienceofindigenouspeoplesremainslargelybeyondtheir grasp.Ithasthepower,asschemado,toforestallfurtherquestions, tokillcuriosity.Theideaofgenerativityoffersanantidote,perhaps. Thehistoricalrelationshipsthatunderwriteclaimsorrecognitionsof indigeneityhavemanypotentialsourcesofhistoricalenergy.Willfully settingasidethesatisfactionoftheschema,onecanimagineindigeneity asabundleofgenerativepossibilities,someofwhichwillbeactivatedor apparentatagiventimeandplacewhileotherswillnot.Differentsettings andhistoricaljunctureswillactivatedifferentsourcesofenergy,with effectsthatareunpredictablebeforehandbutdecipherableinretrospect. This is one way of describing what Tuhiwai Smith calls becoming indigenousorindigenousbecoming.Inthetermsintroducedrecently byAnnaTsing(2005),indigeneityisproducedbyparticularpointsof frictioninspecificsettings.Remoteness—geographicalmarginalitywith referencetoacentralizedstate—forexample,isapowerfulgeneratorof indigeneity.Remoteness,whenactivatedasaforce,almostinevitably translates into difference and a perceived absence of assimilation. It can also generate a narrative of refusal of a presumed invitation to assimilate.Territoriality,thatisaclaimtoterritorybyvirtueoflongtermhabitation,isanotherkeygeneratorofindigeneity.AsTsingand othersshow,thedecontrolledplunderoflumberandmineralindustries unleashedinthelastdecadesofthe20thcenturyactivatedthisclaim tohabitusinforestedregions.Indigeneityinthesecontextsgenerates authority for making claims on institutions and forging alliances. Subsistencelifewaysalsogenerateindigeneity—thatis,theselifeways
Afterword:IndigeneityToday 403
becomeindigenousatthemomenttheyarethreatened,atthemoment theybecomeapointoffriction. Indigeneityhasdestructivepotentials,asseveralofthechapterspoint out.Intersectingwithreligiousintolerances,Baviskarargues,indigeneity acquires a fascistic, misogynist force. Nyamnjoh finds similarly that the relation of nonequivalence between indigenous–nonindigenous hasthepowertoobstructtheworkingoutofdifferencesonanequal footing.Atourconference,weweremostathomereflectingonthe variable,mutable,negotiated,unpredictablecharacterofagenciesand possibilitiesthatarisetodayfromtherelationofindigeneity,andthe accidental, contingent, circumscribed character of what indigeneity todaycanandcannotachieve.Theideaofgenerativityperhapstakes onesmallsteppastjadedpragmatism.Itconceivesofindigeneitynot asaconfigurationorastate,butasaforcethatenables,thatmakes thingshappen. Thisgenerativity,Iwouldsuggest,liesnotonlyinwhatindigeneity actuallymakeshappeninagiveninstance,butalsointheunrealized possibilitiesthatitcreatesineverysituation,andthatremainaspotentialitiesthatcanbeactivatedinthefuture.6Oneimaginesindigeneity, then,asanunfoldinginspace–timethatgeneratesrealizedandunrealized possibilities.Unrealizedpossibilitiesofthepastremainavailabletothe present, and unrealized possibilities in the present remain available tothefuture;theyarepartofthefertilityorpotencyofthinkingand knowingthrough(i.e.,bymeansof)theindigenous. Howmightonethinkwiththisidea?Canoneusefullyreflectonthe unrealized (and, perhaps, unrealizable) potentialities of indigeneity? What could this enable? Could thinking through indigeneity bring into clarity the unrealized rewriting of knowledge called for by the postprogress,posthumanist,postexpansionistpredicamenttheplanet and its inhabitants now share? Were such a rewriting achieved, the categoryoftheindigenouswouldprobablydisappear.Toenablethe imaginingofsucharewriting,however,ithasrathertobloom.7
Notes 1. I thank Tove Skutnabb-Kangas for relaying me this information, and professorArohaTePareakeMeadofVictoriaUniversityofWellington(New Zealand)forsendingitoutwithinsightfulanalysis.
404
Mary Louise Pratt
2. Etymologically, native derives from born (here); aboriginal means (here) “fromthebeginning”;indigenousmeans“begottenwithin”(here). 3. Generic“tribal”namesarealsooftensecondarytoclanidentity,placeof habitation,language,orotherparameters. 4. Foradetaileddiscussionofthispassage,seeM.L.Pratt1994. 5. Renato Rosaldo argues that in the Philippines the main difference betweenhighland“tribal”groupsandlowlanderswasthatthelatterconverted toChristianityandtheformerdidnot. 6. IamindebtedheretothethoughtofElizabethGrosz2004. 7. IdrawhereonremarksmadeattheconferencebyFrancesNyamnjoh, whosewishforindigeneitywasthatitwouldbeallowedtoblossom,ripen, andthendie.
References Grosz,Elizabeth.2004.Thenickoftime:Politics,evolutionandtheuntimely. Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress. Pratt,M.L.1994.Autoethnographyandtransculturation:Peru1615– 1980. In Colonial discourse/postcolonial theory, edited by F. Barker, P.Hulme,andM.Iverson,24–46.Manchester:ManchesterUniversity Press. Tsing,Anna.2005.Friction:Ethnographyofglobalconnection.Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress.
Index
Abenaki,201–2 AboriginalandTorresStraitIslander Commission(ATSIC),139,145n4 AboriginalAustralians,14–15,16–17, 125–49,199 consubstantialitywiththeland,125, 126,129–36,141,143 diaspora,203–4 historicalcontext,137–42 indigenoussovereignty,216 landrights,44,130–6,141–3,144n3, 203–5 socialconditions,143 terminologicalissues,127–9 urban-dwelling,200 aboriginality,112,113,114,127–8 seealsoindigeneity Abraham,Itty,53 Abramoff,Jack,397 acculturation,46 Active,John,211 activism,4,7,10–11,22,236 AboriginalAustralians,15,132,138, 141 adivasis,287,291,293 anti-environmentalist,55–6 Canada,356 environmental-indigenousalliances, 48,49–50,72,93–4 Indonesia,34 LatinAmerica,13 Maori,21,347–8 Mapuche,106,116 Mexico,40 non-indigenous,41,48 Tibet,229 adivasis,19,54–5,82,275,278–81,292–3 “backwardness,”276 claimtoindigeneity,289–91 Hindunationalism,277–8,282–6,290, 292
Africa,20,176,185,305–7 citizenship,324,325 flexibleindigeneity,324 liberaldemocracy,319 AfricanAmericans,190n14,382,384 agency,101,236 agriculture,139–40,316 Aguaruna,186–7 Ainu,263,265 Alaska,2,206–12,216,357–8,359–74 Alcorn,Janice,62n38 Alexie,Sherman,3 Alfred,Taiaiake,16,172,178–9,185,216 AliansiMasyarakatAdatNusantara (AMAN),35,53,92 AlomíaRobles,Daniel,252,253 Alta-Kautokeinodamproject,51 alterity,100,101,110,111,263 AMANseeAliansiMasyarakatAdat Nusantara Amaru,Túpac,7 Amazon,41,49,53,61n29 AmericanIndianMovement,44 AndeanmusicseeBolivianmusic Anderson,Benedict,201 Ang,Ien,201 Añiñir,David,104 anthropology,6,131,132,171,187,370 Apache,383 Apple,Michael,342,347 archaeology,363–4 Argentina,13–14,100,111–12,253,254 articulationtheory,71–2,186,205 Asad,Talal,24 Asia,236,237–8 seealsoSoutheastAsia assimilation,8,19,39,46,402 Ainu,263 Australia,131,143 Bolivia,265 NewZealand,21,338
405
406
Index
Athapaskan,361,365,367 Atisha,TenzinP.,73 Australia,10,14–15,16–17,44,125–49, 397 historicalcontext,137–42 landrights,44,130–6,141–3,144n3, 203–5 sovereignty,176,216 terminologicalissues,127–9 urbanareas,200 seealsoAboriginalAustralians authenticity,9,72,206,213,214,305 Bolivianmusic,255,257,259 Botswana,309 crisisofJapanese,262 critiquesofconcept,349 “endangered,”264 Hmong/Miao,243 indigenousrights,33 place-based,235 autochthony,8,198–9,205,215,230, 306,309 autonomy,40–1,45–8,59n16,199,306 Mapuche,117 NativeAmericans,168–9,176,177 Tibet,77,78–9,83–4,87,92,93 Aymara,3,7,10,13,249–50,253 Aztecs,5 BabaPhuntsogWangyal,83,85 BaKalanga,315–16,317,318,319–20, 321–2 Baker,R.,131 Baleshwar,Mama,283 BalopiCommission,312–13,317,321–2 Barbadosconferenceonindigenous rights(1971),60n24 BaSarwa,20,316–17,322–3 Baviskar,Amita,19–20,275–303,403 Benei,Veronique,297n18 Benetton,115 Benjamin,Walter,371 Bernstein,Bruce,380,381,386,387,390 Beteille,Andre,225–6,278,355 Bhiladivasis,276,280–1,285,290,293, 296n17 Bhilalaadivasis,276,279,280–1,288, 290,293 BIAseeBureauofIndianAffairs Bigenho,Michelle,18,247–72 biodiversitypreservation,74 Biolsi,Thomas,156,172,190n13,217 BlackPower,46,132 Blainey,Geoffrey,137 Bobb,Bertram,161–2
Bolivia,2,3,13,176,397 folklorizedindigeneity,264–5 languages,249 radicalpolitics,249–50 socialmovements,250–1 Bolivianmusic,18,247–72 folklorization,251–5,260–4 MusicoftheMastersshow,256–60 Bordewich,Fergus,189n8 Borneo,299n37 Botswana,20–1,305–32 culturalcitizenship,318–19 flexibleindigeneity,307,310–11,319, 323–6 insider/outsiderdistinction,307–8 languageissues,309,310,315,320–1 whitepaperonminorities,313–14 boundaries,368–9 Bourdieu,Pierre,232 Brah,Avtar,205 Brazil,21,41,49–50,53 Briones,Claudia,13,19,99–121 Brosius,Peter,289,299n37 Brown,Dee,51 Brown,Michael,15–16,171–94 Bulag,UradynE.,71,83,86 BureauofIndianAffairs(BIA),152, 153–4,155–6,157 Burke,Anthony,185 Burma,226,228,237 Calloway,Colin,201–2 Canada,10,14,23–4,200,355–6 glaciers,359–74 indigenoussovereignty,43–4 NewCaledonia,216 NewZealandlink,40,42–3 tribalsovereignty,176 Canessa,Andrew,249 capitalism,2,8,21,57 Carmody,Kev,130 casinos,152,160–4,180–2 Castaneda,Quetzil,38 caste,12–13,280,287 Castree,Noel,133,137,142,235 Cattelino,Jessica,187 Caufield,Richard,56,62n39 Cavour,Ernesto,254 Chakrabarty,Dipesh,24 Champagne-AishihikFirstNation,364, 365 Chamula,202 Chaudhriadivasis,281,290 Chavez,Cynthia,380,381 Chebanne,Anderson,320
Index 407 Chernela,Janet,61n29 Cherokee,16,216 ChiangKai-shek,82 Chiapas,54,184 Chickasaw,152,164,167–8 China,6,13,72,73,91,92–3 Hmong/Miao,225,226,227–8,229, 233,237,238–9 indigeneityin,81–2 minzuconcept,71,82–4,86–7 religion,85–6 suppressionofdifference,84–5 Tibetanindependence/autonomy,77, 78,79 Chino,Wendell,383 Choctaw,15,16,151–3,156–69 gaming,160–4 motorfuelconflict,157–60 waterrights,164–8 Chow,Rey,348 Christianity,4,163,399,404n5 Alaska,207 Choctaws,161–2 India,281,283,285,297n27 Christians India,275,281–2,285,286,293, 298n28 transnationalcharities,36 citizenship,112,206,325,326 AboriginalAustralians,134 adivasis,286–7,291 Africa,306 Botswana,310–11,312,316,317, 318–19,322,323 cultural,206,310–11,318–19,324–5 NativeAmericans,188n5 civilrights,46 Clifford,James,12,58n1,230,242 “absolutistindigenism,”189n8 articulationtheory,186 indigenousdiasporas,17,197–223, 225,248 climatechange,366–7 Cobo,JoseMartinez,230–1 Coffey,Wallace,174 collaboration,23–5 Collier,John,46,60n20 colonialism,4,5,11,264,367,401 Africa,20,305,306 Australia,137 Botswana,309 Canada,356 GulfofAlaska,358 India,278,281,282 Indonesia,35,36
NewZealand,335,336 resistanceto,7 separationofminorities,34–5 ColumbusQuincentennial(1992),398 Conquest,Robert,172 ConservationInternational(CI),74 constructionism,126,129 CoordinatingOrganizationofthe NeuquénMapuches(COM),107–8, 111 “cosmopolitanethnicity,”320 cosmopolitanism,199,200,319,323 counterhegemony,11–12,203,340 Cree,43 Cruikshank,Julie,14,23–4,355–78 culturaldiversity,101,112 culturalism,135,136,143,205 culturalrights,11,174,186 adivasis,287–8,290 Africa,319 Mexicanactivists,40 RedPowermovement,46,47 Tibet,70–1,91,92,93 culturalsovereignty,174,183–4 culture,131,133,188n4 adivasis,287 Hmong/Miao,231 Maori,350,351 Mapuche,101,104,107–8 natureseparationfrom,362,371, 372–3 Yup’ik,208 Curiñanco,Atilio,115,116 Dagnino,Evelina,21 DalaiLama,77–9,80,87,91,93 dalits,287,291,298n30 damprojects,51,286,288–9,290,291 Darnell,Regna,203,211 Davis,Mike,362 Dayaks,35–6,199 DeclaracióndeQuito(1991),398 Deer,Ada,153–4 “defensivelocalization,”133–4 delaCadena,Marisol,1–31,46,54, 60n17,215,243 Deloria,Vine,51,178 democracy,310–11,312,314,315,318 Dene,44 Denmark,55,56 Devy,G.N.,286 DhankavaNaiks,291 diaspora,17,18,33,199,200–6 Hmong/Miao,225,230,231,240,241, 242–3
408
Index
indigenousexperience,212–14,217 languageof,200–1,212 multipleattachments,205–6,215 translocalism,235 Yup’ik,208,211 DíazPolanco,Hector,46,60n18 difference,4,5 AboriginalAustralians,129,141,143 China,84–5,87 minzuconcept,89,92 discrimination,2,151 Botswana,312,313,315,318 gender-based,52–3,174 Hmong/Miao,243 Indonesia,54 displacement,16–17,166,202 adivasis,288,290,291,293 Hmong/Miao,225,227,235,238–9 seealsodispossession dispossession,104,105–6,212,401 AboriginalAustralians,130 adivasis,292,294n6 Africa,305–6 Mapuche,108,113–14 NativeAmericans,152–3,164,394 Tibet,93 seealsodisplacement diversity,2,8,100,101,110–14 documentaries,237–8 Dodson,Michael,128 “doublebelonging,”206 Douglas,Roger,335 Durant,Randle,167 Durkheim,Emile,6 Eagleton,Terry,172 economicdevelopment,157,160–1, 179–80,335 Ecuador,2,13 education,109,209,284 Maoriinitiatives,338–42,346,348 NewZealand,337–8,344–7 elites,312,317,318–19,321,322 ElSalvador,38 Elwin,Verrier,298n32 Encinas,Zacarías,256,258–9,260 Englund,H.,323 entrepreneurship,231–3 environmentalchange,357,361,366–8, 371 environmentalism,41,48–52,358,362, 373–4 Borneo,299n37 capitalistresourceuse,57 indigenousoppositionto,55–6
Indonesia,37 Tibet,72,93 environmentalstewardship,41,48–52, 69,71,72–5,93 Escobar,A.,133 essentialism,201,215,289,305,318, 319,382 ethnicconflict,35–6,277,285,312,322 seealsoviolence ethnogenesis,133,138,185,214 Ewe,5 exclusivism,200,201 exile,202,213 Hmong/Miao,228 Tibetans,70,71,72–3,76–80,93,94n5 exploitation,401 EZLNseeZapatistamovement Fagan,Brian,357 Favre,Gilbert,253–4,267n3 Fenelon,JamesV.,189n10 festivals,284 Field,Les,188n3 Fienup-Riordan,Ann,206,208–12,213 Fiji,6,200 FirstNations “dwellingperspective,”14 glacierstories,23–4,355–6,364–5, 366–7,369,374 indigenoussovereignty,43–4 seealsoNativeAmericans “firstness,”177,199,250,398 Fleras,Augie,216 folklorization,248–9,251–5,259,260–5, 266 folkstories,239–40 Fortuine,Robert,361 “fractalhybridity,”243 Frazer,James,6 friction,58,104–5,402 fusion,104,107 gaming,152,160–4,180–2,189n10,393 Gandhi,M.K.,52,294n4 Garfunkel,Art,18,252,253 Gegeo,David,210,211 gender,237,241,370–1 seealsowomen Ghurye,G.S.,278 Gidwani,Vinay,203 Gironda,VictorHugo,260 glaciers,23–4,357–8,359–74 environmentalchange,357,366–8 humanencounters,357–8,366,368–9 localknowledge,358,366,369–72
Index 409 Gladney,Dru,85 globalization,216 Gond,296n17 Good,Kenneth,312 Gover,Kevin,153–4 Gramsci,Antonio,41,71 Greenland,55–7 Grossberg,Lawrence,110–11 Grove,Jean,357 Guatemala,3,10 Guha,Ramachandra,3,289 Guha,Sumit,278 Gupta,Akhil,289 Hacking,I.,126 Hale,Charles,216–17,350 Hall,Stuart,3–4,71 Han,82–4,85–6,88–90,93,94,227–8 Hannum,Hurst,173 Harvey,David,172 Hau’ofa,Epeli,197 Hawaii,199–200 Hegel,GeorgWilhelmFriedrich,6 hegemony,11–12,289 Hik,David,362–3 Hill-Burnett,J.,133,138,139 Hindus,19,55,275,276,281–6,292–3 claimstoindigeneity,290 proselytization,297n27 RSSorganization,294n4 sudhaar,296n15 vanvasis,297n19 violence,277–8,298n28 Hishimoto,Koji,257,258,259,260 history,388,389,393 Hmong/Miao,17–18,225–45,255,263–4 entrepreneurship,231–3 landshiftnarratives,227–8 placemaking,235–6 videos,232–4,235,236–42 Hopi,14 Howard,John,137 Huber,Toni,73 humanrights,36,172,173,188n4,355 hunting,209,229,238,369 identity,9,11,236,242,399 AboriginalAustralians,142–3 adivasis,19,282,286,288 African,306 articulated,205 Botswana,324 Choctaw,159 diasporic,18 entitlementtoland,136
folklorization,248–9 Hindu,281 Hmong/Miao,225,231 indigenousvoice,38,248 Japanese,265 Maori,336,347,350–1 Mapuche,13–14,100,101,104,106–9, 110–12 “native,”306,348–9 NativeAmericans,17 “resistance,”235 Tibetan,71,94 Western,264 Yup’ik,207,210,211 ILOseeInternationalLaborOrganization Incas,5,401 inclusion,20,40–1,54,334 Botswana,309 flexibleindigeneity,325 Hindunationalism,281 Mapuche,101 RedPowermovement,47 indebtedness,401–2 India,12–13,19–20,55,82,176, 275–303 adivasis,278–81 diasporacultures,201 Hinduization,281–6,296n17 indigenousrights,178,286–9 migrations,203 Tibetanexilesin,80 indigeneity,2–3,11–13,215,355–6, 398–403 adivasis,275,289–91 Africa,305–7,319 Australia,125,127,128–9,139,140–1 BolivianmusicinJapan,251,255–60 Botswana,307–18,319,323–6 boundarypolitics,18–21 China,81–2,87 claimsto,197–8 commonalitydiscourse,33,125–6 complexityproblem,400 connectiontoland,135–6 folklorization,248–9,251,260–4,265, 266 generativity,402–3 Hindus,281 Hmong/Miao,229–31 Indonesia,34 nationaldiscourseon,54 NewZealand,334 asproblematicconcept,176 reconceptualizationof,3–9 theoryofarticulation,72
410
Index
Tibet,69,71,75,76–9,91,92–4 transnationalmodels,39,40 useofterm,70 Westernrepresentationsof,248 seealsoaboriginality indigenism,71,77,355,356 AboriginalAustralians,126,137,143 absolutist,189n8 Hmong/Miao,230 indigenismo,40,45–6,47 indigenouspeoplesdefinition,230–1 indigenousrights,10–11,12,33,187, 362 adivasis,286–9 Australia,143 basicdemands,69 Borneo,299n37 environmentalism,50 Indonesia,34,54 NativeAmericans,153–4,156 sovereigntyrhetoric,40,171,175–7, 183 Tibet,13 indigenousvoice,38–9,48,57–8,70, 198,248,266 seealsomultivocality Indonesia,5–6,12,34,41,53,54–5,82 Ingold,Tim,366,367 Innis,Harold,368 insider/outsiderdistinction,307–8 integrationism,46 intellectualproperty,184 InternationalLaborOrganization(ILO), 8,46,50,198,278–9 InternationalWorkingGroupon IndigenousAffairs(IWGIA),44 “intimatedistance,”259 Inuit,43–4,199,200,207,356 Inupiaq,207 Iroquois,7,43,44 Islam,35 seealsoMuslims Iwabuchi,Koichi,265 Japan Bolivianmusicin,18,247–72 folklorization,251–2,254–5,260–4, 266 ideologyofhomogeneity,263,264, 265 Jasanoff,Sheila,371 Java,36–7,55 Jones,D.,133,138,139 Jung,Courtney,47,60n25
Kabre,5,202–3 KaktovikInupiatCorporation,2 Kamat,Sangeeta,178 Kant,Immanuel,6 Kastoriano,Riva,206 Kawaratani,LynnEmi,394 Kayapo,60n26,73 Keck,Margaret,49 Kelsey,Jane,334 Kersey,HarryA.,151 Khampas,83 KhenpoJigmePhuntsok,86 Kingsbury,Benedict,62n37 Kngwarreye,Emily,3 knowledge ethnobotanical,184 indigenous,24,81,87,92 local,75,356,361,366,369–72,373–4 localism,358 “traditionalecological,”358,369–72, 373–4 Westernformsof,289 Kunuk,Zacharias,3 KuraKaupapaMaori,339,340,346 Kurttila,Terhi,367 laborunions,181,189n11 Lambert,Valerie,15,16,151–69 land Aboriginalconsubstantialitywith,125, 126,129–36,141,143 Botswana,308–9,311,315,316–17 Choctawwaterrights,164–8 Hmong/Miao,227,228,230 sovereignty,177,183 truststatus,181,182 Yup’ik,207 seealsodispossession;territory landrights,43,300n41 AboriginalAustralians,44,130–6, 141–3,144n3,203–5 adivasis,286–7,288,293,295n7 Botswana,308–9,316 Hmong/Miao,227 Mapuche,102 Tibet,93 seealsoterritory;waterrights landscapes,362,366 language Bolivia,249 Botswana,309,310,315,320–1 Maori,21,338,339,340,341,346,348 Mapuche,105,109 productionofknowledge,24
Index 411 Laos,225,226,228,232,233,237–8 LatinAmerica,10,13,397 neoliberalism,350 pluriethnicautonomy,45–8 sovereignty,176,185 Latour,Bruno,22,362 Lee,GaryY.,240 Leepile,Methaetsile,321 legislation Australia,132–3,134–5,144n3 India,279,295n7 NewZealand,334,339,346 UnitedStates,157,162,166–7 Leuthold,Steven,233 Lévy-Bruhl,Lucien,6 Li,Tania,11,72,236,290 liberaldemocracy,8,310–11,312,319 liberalism,177 LisTxais,240–1 Lobo,Lancy,285–6,297n22 localism,137–8,215,235 logging,36 Lomawaima,K.Tsianina,156 Longfellow,HenryWadsworth,1 LópezyRivas,Gilberto,59n16 LowellGlacier,360–1 Maaka,Roger,216 Madurese,35–6 Makwerekwere,315 Malaysia,41,50 Mamdani,Mahmood,4 Manuel,George,42,51 Maori,3,7,21,42–3,210,333–52 actors,2 authenticity,349 collectiveidentity,343–4 educationalinitiatives,338–42,346, 348 invasionofRehoku,189n7 neoliberaleducationreforms,344–7 newidentities,350–1 protestmovements,10 responsestoneoliberalreforms,342–3 sovereignty,174 Mapuche,13–14,99–121,397 convergencethroughdifference, 114–16 diversity,110–14 emancipatorystruggle,116–17 personalexperiencesofMapucheness, 101–10 mapuheavies,103–5,106,107,110,113, 116
mapunkies,103–5,106,107,110,113, 116 mapurbes,104,106–7,116 martialartsfilms,240 Martínez,MiguelAlfonso,70 Marxism,8,47,51,80 masyarakatadat,34,35,37,39,54,55,82 MayanIndians,200,216–17 Maybury-Lewis,David,76 McClellan,Catharine,361 McMaster,Gerald,380,381,386 McMullen,Ann,380,381,386,387,393, 396 mediaproduction,17–18,227,231–5, 236–42,243 Meenaadivasis,281 Menchú,Rigoberta,10 Mendes,Chico,49–50,61n30 Merlan,Francesca,14,125–49,203,204 mestizaje,8,40,45,60n17,252,265 mestizo,5,6,54,215,253 Métis,356 Mexico,5–6 pluriethnicautonomy,45–8 RedPowermovement,40 Zapatistas,11,45,250–1,397 Miao,82,227–8,243n1 seealsoHmong/Miao migration,113,202–3,208,292 seealsodiaspora Miler,BruceGranville,61n34 Miller,James,127–8 Minde,Henry,50 mining,14,100,102,130,135,140 minzu,71,82–4,85,86–7,88–91,92 Mishra,Vijay,201 missionaries,36,161,207,309 modernity,175,209,264,266 Mogae,FestusG.,313–14,324 Mogoditshane,308,311 Mohawks,202,385–6 Moore,Donald,16 Morales,Evo,2,9,250–1,261,266,397 Moriori,189n7 movies,2,233–4,240 Muehlebach,Andrea,217 multiculturalism,8,10,168 Alaska,210,211 Bolivia,265 LatinAmerica,397 neoliberal,216–17,350 Tibet,71 multivocality,388–9 Murray,Andrew,317–18
412
Index
music BolivianmusicinJapan,18,247–72 Hmong/Miao,234,237,238 MusicoftheMasters,256–60 Muslims,19,275,277,281–2,285–6, 294n4,295n11 Narmadadamcampaign,286,288,290 narratives environmentalchange,366–8 glaciers,23–4,357,359,360–1,362–6, 372–4 humanencounters,368–9 localknowledge,369–72,374 NativeAmericanhistory,389–90,392, 393 NationalIndianBrotherhood,42,43,44 nationalism,5,6,12,53,355 Bolivia,252,264–5 Botswana,307 China,82,83 essentialistclaims,215 Hindu,55,275,281–6,292–3,294n4, 300n42 Indonesia,34,36–7 Japan,265 “long-distance,”201,202 Mexico,45 Tibet,80 NationalMuseumoftheAmerican Indian(NMAI),22–3,181,379–96 contactnarrative,386,389 intellectualinfrastructure,382–3 statementofintent,391–3 targetaudience,393–4 tribalhistories,386–9,390 NativeAmericans,1,14,18–19,44, 216 anti-unionism,181,189n11 citizenship,188n5 environmentalstewardship,73 “federallyrecognizedtribes,”154 gamingindustry,152,160–4,180–2, 189n10,393 “Indian”identity,17 labormigrations,202–3 RedPowermovement,10,46–7 self-determination,151 sovereignty,52–3,153–6,172,175–6, 177–82,185 seealsoChoctaw;FirstNations “native”identity,306,348–9 nativism,200 nature,6,362,368–9,371,373–4
Navajo,14,186–7,202 Ndaba,Batshani,321–2 neoliberalism,8,9,59n16,172,178 Bolivia,250,265 China,85,86 “enterpriseculture,”232 multiculturalism,350 newsubjectivities,349–50 NewZealand,21,334–6,337–8,339, 342–8,351 strategiesofindigeneity,242 NewMexico,15 NewZealand,2,7,21,189n7,333–52, 397 biculturalpolity,216 Canadalink,40,42–3 educationalreforms,337–8,344–7 Maorieducationalinitiatives,338–42 Maoriresponsestoneoliberalreforms, 342–3 PolynesianPantherMovement,10 sovereignty,174,176 TreatyofWaitangi,39,43,333,335–6, 338,342,349 urbanareas,200 NgaTamatoa,10 NGOsseenon-governmental organizations Nicaragua,1,53 Niezen,Ronald,58n1,71,76,144n1 NMAIseeNationalMuseumofthe AmericanIndian NobleSavage,248 non-governmentalorganizations(NGOs), 73,93 Norway,50–2 nostalgia,17–18,236,240,264,266 Nunavut,216 Nyamnjoh,FrancisB.,20–1,305–32,403, 404n7 NyathiRamahobo,Lydia,321 oilcompanies,57 Olssen,M.,337,342,343 Ong,Aihwa,201 oraltraditions,361,365–6,367,370,371, 372 Orecklin,Michelle,228 Orientalism,289 PacificIslanders,199,200 Parkin,Robert,296n17 partnershipagreements,142 pastoralism,139–40
Index 413 patriarchy,52–3 peasants,47,55,72,252,254 Penney,David,385,386 perdurance,401 Perry,RichardWarren,183 Peru,13,54,186–7,399 Peters,Kurt,212 Peterson,Brandt,38 Philippines,404n5 Pierik,Verena,394 place,211,292 placemaking,217,227,235–6,243 pluriethnicautonomy,40–1,45–8 politicalrights,70–1,151,155,168 politics,4,18–21,38,40,57,117 Australia,138–9 Bolivia,249–50,254 Botswana,311–12,313–15,316,317 environmental,373,374 India,277,284–5,291,294n4,300n42 Indonesia,34,37 Mapuche,101,105,116 neoliberalism,345 postcolonial,5 Sami,51–2 subaltern,11,178 polygyny,239–40 PolynesianPantherMovement,10 PomadeAyala,Guamán,7 populism,72,175 Portelli,Allesandro,370 Porter,RobertB.,173,188n1,188n5 postcolonialtheory,22,200,336,355, 356,358 poverty,2,212,213 adivasis,276,279 Choctaw,15,157,158 Mapuche,104 powerissues,24,25 Pratt,MaryLouise,4,397–404 privateproperty,228–9 proselytization,297n27,401 protectedareas,369 Pyle,Greg,167,168 Quechua,7,13,249 Quichua,2 Quijano,Aníbal,11 Quispe,Felipe(ElMallku),249–50,261 race,5,12,20,82,189n8 “race-shifting,”18–19 racism,228,243,325,335,402 Raffles,Hugh,61n28,61n35
rainforestcampaign,41,49–50 Ramirez,Renya,52,212 Ramos,Alcida,9 Ramos,Uña,254 RashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh(RSS), 277–8,281,286,294n4,295n12 realism,214–16,217 RedPowermovement,10,40,46–7,51, 200 religion,12–13,36,401 China,85–6 Choctaws,161–2 India,296n17 seealsoChristianity;Hindus;Muslims remoteness,358,402 RepublicofNewAfrika,190n14 reservations,39,164–5,179–80,316–17 resistance Maori,336,338,340,342–3 Mapuche,101,111,117 Rickard,Jolene,391,394–5 “righttodevelopment,”61n32 rituals,284 Roberts,Hollis,161,162,167 Rosaldo,Renato,404n5 RoyBurman,B.K.,296n17 RSSseeRashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh RúaNahuelquir,Rosa,115,116 ruralareas adivasis,280–1 Africa,306 Australia,140 Mapuchecommunities,105,113 Russia,207 Rwanda,20 sameness,4,5 Sami,44,50–2,176,199 Sanders,Douglas,60n20 Sandino,AugustoCésar,1 SanghParivar,281–6,290,294n4, 295n11,297n19,297n23,298n28 Sansom,Basil,138 Sarawak,50 SardarSarovardam,286,288–9 Sauer,Carl,131 Schein,Louisa,17–18,83,225–45, 263–4 science,370,371–2 self,101,110 self-determination,16,38,42,52,185–6, 216 Australia,131,143 democraticfederalism,179
414
Index
Maori,344 Mapuche,108,117n5 Mexico,45 minzuconcept,83 NativeAmericans,15,153–5,157,168, 176,179–80 RepublicofNewAfrika,190n14 Tibet,69,77–9,91 asuniversaltheme,151 UNpolicystatements,173 withoutsecession,76,77,397 seealsosovereignty self-representation,22–3,73,75,240 Selolwane,O.D.,316 Seminole,383 Simon,Paul,18,252,253 Sioux,384 Sivaramakrishnan,K.,203 Skaria,Ajay,278 slavery,6,382,383 smallpox,361–2 Smith,Andrea,174–5 Smith,BenjaminRichard,203–4 Smith,Graham,339 Smith,Kitty,360,371 Smith,LindaTuhiwai,21,59n9,197, 210,333–52,399,402 Smith,PaulChaat,17,22–3,379–96 socialjustice,4,11,21,37,366 AboriginalAustralians,132 environmentalism,50 Indonesia,36 Mexico,47 socialmemory,362 socialservices,344,345 SolomonIslands,210 SouthAfrica,20,319 SoutheastAsia,34,41,176,215,225–6, 230 sovereignty,13,14–16,171–94,198–9, 201 Choctaw,152,156–7,160,163–4, 166–7,168 critiquesofindigenous,177–9,185 discoursesof,216–17 genealogiesof,173–5 NativeAmericans,153–6,168–9,172, 175–6,177–82,185 negativeimpactsof,181–3 rhetoricof,40,41,42–4,52–3,175–7, 183 Tibet,71,76–7,79 withoutsecession,76–7 seealsoself-determination
Sperling,Elliot,80 Stanner,William,137 Starn,Orin,1–31 statesovereignty,173–4 Sturm,Circe,18,216 subalternpolitics,11,178 subjectivity,101,110,111,349–50 Sundar,Nandini,278,297n18 Sunder,Madhavi,188n4 SunYat-sen,82,83 Tadviadivasis,290 Taiwan,6 Tayac,Gabrielle,393 TEKsee“traditionalecological knowledge” TeKohangaReo,338,339,340 territoriality,112–13,313,314,402 territory,14–15,16,33,125,137 seealsoland;landrights TeUaHaumene,7 Thailand,225,226,228,233,237 Thao,Su,237 Thayeendanegea,7 Tibet,13,69–97,229 commodificationofculture,85 environmentalstewardship,72–5 minzuconcept,82,83,84,88–91,92 protestsin,80 self-determinationandsovereignty, 76–9 Tlingit,360,362,365,367 Togo,5 Toledo,Alejandro,9 TorresStraitIslanders,144n2 tourism,85,140 “traditionalecologicalknowledge”(TEK), 369–72,373–4 translocalism,235,243 “transmigrants,”235 travelplazas,157–60 “tribalallegory,”72 Trouillot,Michel-Rolph,6 Trudeau,Pierre,42 Tsing,Anna,12–13,33–66,72,171,230, 248,402 Tsosie,Rebecca,174 Tswana,309,312–16,317–18,319–20, 322 Tully,James,179,216 TúpacKatari,7,249,250 Turner,Stephen,174 two-rowwampum,44 Tylor,E.B.,6
Index 415 unemployment,15,340 UNESCO(UnitedNationsEducational, ScientificandCulturalOrganization), 184,369,372 UnitedNations(UN),10,40,44,52,198 DeclarationontheRightsof IndigenousPeoples,397 indigeneityconcept,128 sovereignty,173,217 WorkingGrouponIndigenous Populations,70,128,129,278–9 WorkingGrouponIndigenousRights, 76 UnitedStates(US),2,7,15,44,52,200 Abramoffcorruptionscandal,397 activism,10 Africanslaves,6 assimilationpolicies,8 Hmong/Miao,226,231–5 labormigrations,202 tribalsovereignty,151,153–6,168–9, 172,175–82,185 seealsoNativeAmericans urbanareas,15,200,280 Africa,306 Australia,140 Mapuchecommunities,104,106–7, 111,113,114,115 urbanization,203,208 utopianism,172
Wananga,339,340 Wang,Lixong,91 Warrior,Clyde,384 waterrights,164–8 Watts,MichaelJohn,242 WaveHill,134 WCIPseeWorldCouncilofIndigenous Peoples Weber,Max,187 Weiner,James,204–5 Werbner,Richard,315,320 whaling,56–7 White,Richard,372 Wilkins,DavidE.,156 Williams,Raymond,288 Woeser,90–1 women adivasis,280,295n9 Botswana,311 glacierstories,370–1 Hmongvideos,237 Mapuche,102–3 NativeAmerican,174 WorldCouncilofIndigenousPeoples (WCIP),43,51,60n24,129 WorldHeritageSites,369,372–3
VanCott,DonnaLee,48 Vanuatu,216 vanvasis,297n19 VargasLlosa,Mario,9 videos,17–18,232–4,235,236–42 Vietnam,225,226,228,237 violence,277,285–6,294n4,295n11, 297n26,298n28 seealsoethnicconflict voice,38–9,48,57–58,70,198,248,266 seealsomultivocality
Yanyunwa,131 Yeh,Emily,13,69–97,229 Yirrkalacase,130,144n3,145n6 Yolngu,130 Young,IrisMarion,179 youngpeople,103–10,115–16,231 Yucatan,38 YukonTerritories,14,23–4,357, 359–74 Yunupingu,Galarrwuy,130 Yup’ik,206–12,213
Wacquant,Loic,232 Waldron,Jeremy,177,189n7
Zapatistamovement(EZLN),11,45,47, 250–1,397
Xaxa,Virginius,299n39 Xiong,Gaoib,229 Xiong,Yuepheng,238–9