From: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)
Subject: Re: Comments on the 2nd RFD: soc.culture.native
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:11:52 GMT

I decided to wait a day to respond to Mike's most recent article concerning
the wording of the charter that talks about the definition of the words
"native," "indigenous," and "aboriginal" which is an important part of the
charter.  I wanted to consult with Preston Hardison, who supplied the text
which contained the definition used internationally which a few of us
thought might be adapted for our present purposes.

I think the wait was worthwhile, since I got a very nice note today from
Preston, which I will refer to and quote from in the following response
to what Mike Wilson and Arlen Speights have written recently.

First, just to review who said what, I'd like to go back several days and
quote from Arlen, who said, shortly after I passed on the article from
Preston:

| From: speights@iear.arts.rpi.edu (Arlen Speights)
| Date: 23 Jan 93 03:17:06 GMT
| Subject: Re: soc.culture.native newsgroup charter
| Newsgroups: alt.native,news.groups,soc.culture.misc
| Message-ID: <pbl3sq+@rpi.edu>
|
| ...
|
| I think the article is particularly useful to our charter, but in the
| interest of keeping the charter under a gigabyte, we'd have to be
| slective about paraphrasing:
|
| >                              the existing descendents of the
| >peoples who inhabited the present territory of a country
| >at the time when persons of a different culture or ethnic origin
| >colonized that country, and
| >Who today live more in conformity with their particular social, economic
| >and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of the
| >country of which they now form a part.
|
| That last paragraph might be a bit exclusive, but I think it brings
| out a few important ideas as well.
| Here's the working draft of the part of the charter that I think could
| benefit from the above lines:
|
| newsgroup, "native" is considered roughly synonymous with "aboriginal" or
| "indigenous" -- all terms which underscore a population's having been the
| first to inhabit a particular region.  This newsgroup is intended to be
|
| I think it would be better like this:
|
| ..."native is considered roughly synonymous with "aboriginal" or
| "indigenous" -- all terms that designate the existing descendents
| of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of a country
| at the time when persons of a different culture or ethnic origin
| colonized that country, and who today live more in conformity with
| their particular social, economic and cultural customs and traditions
| than with the institutions of the country of which they now form a part..."

I just wanted to make it clear that Arlen has indicated an ability to
accept at least some of the language from the text Preston sent.  I
think it was what followed the "..." above that may be what is causing
concern to Mike, what begins "under a State structure...":


In <idoy.727895586@crux1.cit.cornell.edu> idoy@crux1.cit.cornell.edu
	(Mike Wilson) writes:

> gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo) writes:

> >  CHARTER: Soc.culture.native is for the discussion  of  issues  relating  to
> >  native populations throughout the world.  For the purposes of defining this
> >  newsgroup, "native" is considered roughly synonymous with  "aboriginal"  or
> >  "indigenous."  All of these terms designate the existing descendents of the
> >  peoples who inhabited the present territory of a country at the  time  when
> >  persons  of  a different culture or ethnic origin colonized that territory,
> >  and who today  live  more  in  conformity  with  their  particular  social,
> >  economic  and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of
> >  the country of which they now form a part, under a  State  structure  which
> >  incorporates  mainly  the  national, social and cultural characteristics of
> >  other segments of the population which are now predominant.

> This addition sounds too exclusive for my tastes.  Not all native
> people have been colonized, and in our honest moments we admit that
> native people have done some colonizing and oppressing ourselves...

>Furthermore, not all native people have been "colonized"; many
>are still living more or less apart and in peace with those around
>them.

In a later article, Arlen agreed with Mike's points:

| From: speights@iear.arts.rpi.edu (Arlen Speights)
| Subject: Re: Comments on the 2nd RFD: soc.culture.native
| Message-ID: <s8m32x=@rpi.edu>
| Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:08:29 GMT
|
| ...
|
| Points well taken.  I can see how the wording could be limiting.
|
| > What I object to even more in this addition, however, is the
| > statement that Indian Nations form a part or are "under" a
| > State structure.  With that little phrase, you have effectively
| > undermined the sovereign status of Indian Nations in America.
|
| I agree.  The last phrase is definitely extreme, paternalistic as
| I believe the original article called it.

OK.  I'd like to turn to Preston's message from today to see if we
can shed a bit more light on the matter, and maybe form the basis
for some kind of mutual compromise.  I think it would be best to
just quote the relevant portion of Preston's comments in their
entirety, so that I don't mis-state his views:

+ From: Preston Hardison <u.washington.edu!pdh>
+ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 08:13:21 -0800 (PST)
+ Subject: Re: usenet charter
+ To: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
+ Message-Id: <Pine.3.05.9301260821.A18488-c100000@stein.u.washington.edu>
+
+ Hi Gary:
+
+ I've looked over the materials in your note. I think I understand Mike's
+ apprehensions, and they could be addressed in the charter.
+
+ The UN working definitions come out of a statist institution, and reflect
+ the perspectives of national governments. Mike is worried about the
+ passage 'and under a State structure . . .". From a state perspective,
+ this is really the case. Even "uncolonized" or uncontacted peoples are
+ effectively under state control, with rights that exist only as the states
+ grant them. In Brazil, for example, all indians are 'wards of the state',
+ which applies to even the more or less unfettered tribes in the western
+ Amazon. Their current autonomy is only temporary, existing until they come
+ into some direct conflict with the state.
+
+ The same applies to more developed tribes. No matter how autonomous in the
+ US, tribes still cannot enter into treaties with foreign governments,
+ secede from the US, raise their own armies, etc. Although they have
+ semi-autonomous status, their freedom falls short of true autonomy. The
+ Nunavik in Canada will be given (granted by the state of Canada)
+ self-government, but it will be limited, and they do not own (by Canadian
+ law) subsurface rights.
+
+ This is the way it is. Indigenous peoples, of course, can dispute the
+ doctrine that indigenous peoples only have rights as European law gives
+ rights to them. Mike is worried that the charter seems to support this
+ premise. By establishing definitions based on current states, we risk
+ endorsing those states. Part of the problem could be solved by dropping
+ the clause from the charter "and under a State . . . ", which really
+ restates the first clause (if indigenous people differ from the dominant
+ national culture, then the national culture must necessarily differ from
+ the indigenous culture).
+
+ This still leaves the problem of a positive definition of indigenous
+ peoples. Mike is worried about defining people solely by their relation-
+ ship to a history of colonialism. Here I would argue that we run into
+ difficulties because there is no finite list of things that are necessary
+ and sufficient to identify a person as indigenous. We've had the running
+ arguments over genetic and cultural definitions on the net, and these same
+ arguments have run on at the international level for decades. The
+ indigenous populations of the world are extremely heterogeneous in their
+ beliefs and histories of movement, warfare, colonial contact, customs,
+ etc. What definitions usually do is identify similarity at the highest
+ level of generality - and the colonial experience is unfortunately one of
+ the most unifying characteristics (and this part of the definition has
+ been supported my many indigenous groups who endorse the working
+ definition). This also means that the definitions will apply to groups as
+ a whole, and not individuals (so that we don't get into the problem of
+ whether this person or that person passes some litmus test of being an
+ indigenous person).
+
+ One way around this problem might be to insert a "self-identification"
+ clause that relates being indigenous as being associated with a group
+ recognized as being indigenous by international INDIGENOUS bodies (such as
+ the World Council of Indigenous Peoples). This would get part of the
+ definition out of the Statist hands, and give control of the definition of
+ indigenous peoples to the peoples themselves, as Mike suggests.


Mike went on in his recent article to say:

> In other words, I don't like for us Native People to  be defined
> by negation: that is, we are Native People because we are in
> opposition to oppressive Europeans.  Native life, it seems to
> me, involves so many other things: family, ceremony, relatedness,
> tricksterism, balance, and so forth.  This is the positive.
> At a pow-wow, or another gathering with people from other
> Native Nations, listening to the music, watching our beautiful
> people, maybe eating fry bread, I would be horrified to
> think that all we have in common is our oppression.

Perhaps Mike could suggest a way to continue beyond the point where I
think we all agree:

  CHARTER: Soc.culture.native is for the discussion  of  issues  relating  to
  native populations throughout the world.  For the purposes of defining this
  newsgroup, "native" is considered roughly synonymous with  "aboriginal"  or
  "indigenous."  All of these terms designate the existing descendents of the
  peoples who inhabited the present territory of a country at the  time  when
  persons  of  a different culture or ethnic origin colonized that territory,
  and who today  live  more  in  conformity  with  their  particular  social,
  economic  and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of
  the country of which they now form a part...

Is there a fundamental objection to even mentioning the fact of colonization,
in light of what Preston has offered?  You see, I'm still a bit concerned
that the matter that David Davidian identified earlier may become a problem
later - that the concept of "indigenous," if defined too loosely, might be
a cause of problems later on, when various ethnic groups which most of us
would not consider indigenous in the sense in which we've been talking about
the concept (e.g. Palestinians, perhaps) might latch on to this newsgroup as
a venue for talking about issues which are more appropriately discussed in
other newsgroups.  I've seen one definition of indigenous, which I can't
seem to find, that referred to a sense of a spiritual bond with the land -
something that is missing from what Preston sent, but which may raise as
many questions as it answers, I suppose, since one then needs to talk about
what "spirituality" means, etc.

I think this is an important consideration, but I don't want to get too
hung up fine points of language, or to insist on using a concept like
"colonization" if the majority of indigenous people object to using such
a concept as a means of recognizing one another.  But I think we have to
give some serious consideration to what Preston says about how the fact
of living under a system which is essentially "foreign" is a fundamental
fact of life which indigenous peoples around the world face.  Perhaps by
facing that fact together, an increased sense of unity could be achieved.

My intent is not to make this newsgroup overly political in its basic
orientation by means of the definitions given in the charter.  And I do
recognize that the newsgroup will be whatever it turns out to be, regard-
less of what we say it is, or what we may personally want it to be or to
become.  Perhaps a better definition can come out of the discussions we
actually have in the newsgroup itself, and we can revise the charter if
we feel we need to at a later time.  I just wanted to bring out as much
seeminly useful information and as many perspectives as seem to bear on
the subject at this point, when we're still considering what we want the
charter to say, and these things might be useful.

Before closing, I'll try to quickly address Mike's other points:

> Furthermore, not all native people have been "colonized"; many
> are still living more or less apart and in peace with those around
> them. Just because you are a native person doesn't mean you are
> by definition at war with an oppressor of some kind.  Some Native
> people like Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Elija Harper have even joined
> the "oppressor" governments. Are they then no longer representative
> of native life?

I think we need to go back to the distinction between "people" and "peoples"
to talk meaningfully about this subject.  Neither Ben Nighthorse Campbell or
Elijah Harper feels "colonized" in his own heart and soul, I'm sure.  But I
am sure that both would be very willing to acknowledge and even to expound
on the subject of how their respective peoples have come under the coloniz-
ing force of cultures which are alien to their lands.  They are representa-
tive of their own peoples by virtue of a legal system which is not their
own, and some *would* feel that they have "sold out."  They have achieved
certain compromises within themselves and with the reality they confront.
They have chosen what they feel to be the greater good for their own people,
based on their own judgement of the situation.  These things are never black
and white, I'm afraid.

> What I object to even more in this addition, however, is the
> statement that Indian Nations form a part or are "under" a
> State structure.  With that little phrase, you have effectively
> undermined the sovereign status of Indian Nations in America.

I don't think the term was meant in a psychological sense as much as it was
an indication of the legal reality, given the power of the governments of
the nations which claim the territory to make those definitions, and to
make them stick based on their mutual consent with one another in an inter-
national community where they are dealing primarily with other entities
like themselves.  However, perhaps there would be more misunderstanding by
having that phrase ("under a State structure") that it would be best to
delete it, since we are not drafting a formal legal document.  But I feel
we should still consider the matter of how to deal with the matter of
colonization as a possibily legitimate part of the definition of the words
we have mentioned ("native," "indigenous," and "aboriginal") which we take
to be synonyms of one another.

> Many Native Nations consider themselves sovereign, by law and
> by nature, to countries like Canada and the United States.  Our
> relationship to these governments involves treaty obligations,
> going both ways, made between equal and independent people,
> just as the US makes arms treaties with Russia or trade treaties
> with Mexico.  I feel pretty strongly about this one.

Well, feeling strongly is one thing.  Being able to actually carry out the
rights of a fully sovereign entity is quite another.  One can work toward
the goal of sovereignty, as some native leaders would like to do, but it
should be recognized that that actual sovereignty is not a present reality,
so it seems hard for me to see how we can make it part of the definition
of what it means to be indigenous.

> Why not leave it sort of vague as it was before?  It seems to
> me that it left open the possibility of discussion among all
> KINDS of native people, urban and reservation, dislocated and
> intact.  The first order of discussion in the new newsgroup
> (assuming it passes) might be a discussion of Native or Indian
> identity, which is essentially what we are dealing with here.
> I'm not at all sure it's something that can be resolved in
> a charter (or anywhere else, finally).

I like the idea of making the discussion of this question one of the first
priorities after soc.culture.native becomes a reality.  However, the dis-
cussion has been going on on alt.native and NativeNet for several years
now, and we don't seem any closer to real agreement than we ever were, and,
as Preston points out, that same problem persists in international diplo-
matic circles as well.

Can we all at least agree on the first part of the paragraph, then, and
maybe leave out the rest of the sentence?

Here's what we have so far.  Is it good enough, or do we want to talk a bit
more about the issue of whether the concept of "colonization" belongs in
the definition? I still feel we're very close to having a good working
charter, and hope we can agree soon.

Here's what I have thus far:


  CHARTER: Soc.culture.native is for the discussion  of  issues  relating  to
  native populations throughout the world.  For the purposes of defining this
  newsgroup, "native" is considered roughly synonymous with  "aboriginal"  or
  "indigenous."  All of these terms designate the existing descendents of the
  peoples who inhabited the present territory of a country at the  time  when
  persons  of  a different culture or ethnic origin colonized that territory,
  and who today  live  more  in  conformity  with  their  particular  social,
  economic  and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of
  the country of which they now form a part...

  This newsgroup is intended to be  inclusive,  not  exclusive,  offering  an
  important  vehicle for exchange among native peoples and between native and
  non-native peoples.  Besides providing a forum for the discussion  of  such
  issues  as  sovereignty, religion, education and philosophy, this newsgroup
  will also carry news stories and bulletins which pertain to current  events
  relating   to  indigenous  peoples,  and  which  alert  readers  to  urgent
  situations which require immediate responses, such as  human  rights  cases
  and imminent encroachment upon native populations.

  We recognize that a number of Usenet newsgroups do exist for the purpose of
  exchanging  information  and  ideas  about  various peoples and places, and
  about issues (e.g., environment) which are relevant to the concerns of  the
  members  of  indigenous  societies.   Soc.culture.native  welcomes articles
  whose content pertains to topics important to indigenous peoples which  are
  cross-posted to other newsgroups.

More comments?

Thanks.

Gary
--
    Gary S. Trujillo                            gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts              {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
Newsgroups: alt.native,news.groups,soc.culture.misc