Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity
Volume 1, Issue 1, March 2023
Edited by GSI E-Journal Editorial Office, Hokkaido University
Published by Global Station for Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity (GSI), Hokkaido University
URL: https://gi-core.oia.hokudai.ac.jp/gsi/
Email: gsi@oia.hokudai.ac.jp
Phone: +81-(0)11-706-7324
Address: Hokkaido University Northern Campus Research Building No.3-106
Kita-21, Nishi-11, Kita-ku, Sapporo 001-0021, JAPANISSN 2758-1012

Table of Contents
1. Editor’s Welcome  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3
Joe E. WATKINS, Designated Campus Colleague, School of Anthropology, University of Arizona

2. Inheriting “Difficult Histories”: National Identities, Memory Debates and Cultural
Diversity  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6
Peter JORDAN, Professor, Department of Archeology, Lund University

3. Indigenous Studies and Anthropology: Future Pathways and Partnerships  - - - - - 38
Joe E. WATKINS, Designated Campus Colleague, School of Anthropology, University of Arizona

4. Report on the Seminar of the Indigeneity Research Unit, GSI  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 53
- Hirofumi KATO, Director, Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido University- Joe E. WATKINS, Designated Campus Colleague, School of Anthropology, University of Arizona- Sikopo NYAMBE, Assistant Professor, Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido University

5. Report on the Seminar of the Indigenous Heritage Research Unit, GSI  - - - - - - - - 58
- James LETSON, Graduate Student, Graduate School of Humanities and Human Sciences, Hokkaido University- Akiko TASHIRO, Associate Professor, Research Faculty of Media and Communication, Hokkaido University

6. Human Ecology and Global Health Research Unit Seminar  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 62
- Sikopo NYAMBE, Assistant Professor, Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido University- Akira SAI, Assistant Professor, Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido University- Taro YAMAUCHI, Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University

1. Editor’s Welcome
Joe E. WATKINS, Designated Campus Colleague, School of Anthropology, University of Arizona

Editor’s
WelcomeJoe E. WATKINS
Editor-in-Chief
Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Journal

Hello, and welcome to the inaugural edition of the e-journal,“Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity!” As the Editor-in-Chief, I wantto thank those who have voluntarily served as editors, reviewers, andmanuscript managers as we have worked to develop this first volume. I also
want to thank our authors for contributing their articles to this inauguralissue. This first issue is based on commemorative lectures and discussions
by members of Hokkaido University’s Global Station for Indigenous Studies
and Cultural Diversity (GSI) in January 2022. GSI was established to bring
together global researchers within three broad areas: Indigeneity, Indigenous
Heritage, and Human Ecology and Global Health.
Our journal intends to publish research papers on the global andregional issues of Indigenous people and on topics related to the nature ofcultural diversity and Indigenous communities. We will publish articles
exploring a variety of wide-ranging themes: Indigeneity; Indigenous3

heritage; human ecology and global health; culture, ethnicity, minorities,
and adaptation; government policy impacting Indigenous people; and otherresearch areas that relate to Indigenous people and cultural diversity. We
welcome the opportunity to look at the intersections of these topics throughcontemporary research.
It is our intention to serve as a forum for the exchange of ideas andclarification of issues of importance to global Indigenous groups. We aim
to offer opportunities for a wide variety of authors – from the establishedto early career researchers. We especially welcome submissions from
Indigenous writers as they work to give voice to their ideas, concerns, andperspectives. We hope to publish the results of research “by, with, and for”
Indigenous people to help create more globally Indigenous disciplines,
and a more inclusive atmosphere for sharing, learning and discovery. As
such, we will periodically produce a non-academic special issue focused oncommunities with content created by the community. We believe it is thismixture of research orientation and authorship that will make our journal
unique.
The journal is committed to publishing all manuscripts that ourqualified reviewers deem to be impactful contributions to Indigenous
studies and the examination of cultural diversity globally. We will publish
original articles, research reports, and reviews and commentaries that havenot been published before as an open-access electronic journal. The editors
will evaluate all submissions to confirm their suitability for the journal
before passing through the double-blind peer review process for evaluation
and recommendations.
While we expect to publish a minimum of two issues of Indigenous
Studies and Cultural Diversity per year, we are also open to suggestions byresearchers or Indigenous communities for special volumes or bodies ofrelated articles. We intend to create a special issue each year of selected
works in Ainu or other Indigenous languages as a means of making researchavailable and to help in revitalizing Indigenous languages. We will also
periodically issue special calls for papers to investigate specific issues or
topics. The journal will serve as the reporting arm of Hokkaido University’s
Global Station. As such, each year one issue of the journal will provide shortreports concerning the on-going activities of each of the three units. This
first issue is one such issue.
In conjunction with this formal publication program, we also expect
to utilize online media platforms to give further voice to our publishedwork and to make it more easily available to non-academic communities.

4

We will refine this multimedia concept as we develop relationships with
communities and partners.
I close this message with an invitation to everyone to submit theirarticles and original manuscripts to the Managing Editor of Indigenous
Studies and Cultural Diversity through our website for immediate
consideration. All submissions will be acknowledged and reviewed forsuitability for publication.

5

2. Inheriting “Difficult Histories”: National Identities, Memory Debates and Cultural Diversity
Peter JORDAN, Professor, Department of Archeology, Lund University

Inheriting “Difficult Histories”:
National Identities, Memory
Debates and Cultural Diversity
Peter JORDAN

1

1 Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Lund University, Sweden.
peter.jordan@ark.lu.se

Abstract
For some reason, modern European nations have traditionally presented themselves as
having a lot of rich and important history, much of it portrayed as being “international” in termsof cultural impact and wider global significance. Today, much of this history appears to be far
more controversial than many comfortable national-popular narratives have acknowledged.
This article explores how Europe is increasingly being forced to confront more negativeand painful dimensions to its past; this involves deeper societal engagement with entangled
legacies that are best defined as “difficult histories”. The Netherlands is presented as a central
case-study, which explores how two difficult chapters in national history are caught up in
debates about memory, commemoration, national identity and new forms of cultural diversity.
The overarching goal of the paper is to stimulate deeper reflection on the challenges andopportunities generated by renewed engagement with the kinds of complex historical legacies
that are shared, in one form or another, by all nations of the world.
Keywords: Memory, Identity, Indigenous, Ethnic, Nationalism, Colonialism, Slavery,
Netherlands, Occupation, Dutch Golden Age.

Introduction: Inheriting “Difficult Histories”
The aim of this article is to explore how former colonial powers of Western Europe are struggling
to engage with a diverse set of legacies best defined as “difficult histories” (Note 1). It explores
how these complex and controversial histories are caught up in current debates about memory,collective commemoration, national identity and contemporary cultural diversity, focusing on the
Netherlands as a central case-study (Note 2). This paper is primarily aimed at an international nonEuropean readership; the overarching goal is simply to stimulate deeper personal and collective
reflection on the challenges and opportunities generated by renewed societal engagement with theIndigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023
https://doi.org/10.57519/iscd.00001
Published by Global Station for Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity
https://gi-core.oia.hokudai.ac.jp/gsi/publication.html

6

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

kinds of complex historical legacies that are shared - in one form or another - by all nations of theworld (Note 3).
In Western Europe, there are three main dimensions to these entangled historical legacies;
these strands continue to shape contemporary academic, political and societal debate. The firstissue is how best to portray the European colonial expansion that went on to define the painful
histories and contemporary experiences of today’s global Indigenous peoples. The second is
acknowledging the major role that many European nations had in trafficking millions of Africanslaves to remote colonies, and also accepting that the profits generated by these activities played a
key role in creating the national wealth that established many enduring institutions that persist to
this day. The third strand is linked to the parallel notions of “indigenous” ethnic identity that were
crystalizing across Europe over the same time period, culminating in the genocidal events of the
mid-twentieth century.
For international readers, the most effective entry point into these entangled historical legacies
is to examine current definitions of Indigenous peoples, which highlights their experiences as local
communities negatively impacted by centuries of primarily European colonial incursion. The paper
then falls logically into three sections. In Part 1, contrasts are drawn between: (i) the “external”
European perspectives on “Indigenous” place-based identities, which were shaped and defined by
European colonial expansion; (ii) the “internal” place-based ethnic national identities that were
emerging across Europe in the nineteenth century; and (iii) the new civic-based national identities
that were created across Western Europe after the trauma, chaos and destruction of World War II(WWII). Part 2 develops a deeper analysis of the intersecting roles of history, collective memory,national commemoration and cultural diversity in the contemporary Netherlands, focusing on
the centuries of Dutch involvement in the Atlantic slave trade, and the controversial insights that
continue to emerge from the difficult years of wartime German occupation (1940-1945). Part 3
concludes the paper, and provides some reflections on how contemporary developments in the
Netherlands have parallels with many other nation states who also seek ways to reconcile their own“difficult histories” with older and more emergent forms of identity and cultural diversity.

Defining Indigenous Peoples
Global humanity has today inherited many fundamental existential problems, including
accelerating climate change and an insatiable demand for natural resources. Rising trends in massconsumption drive species extinction and the degradation of marine and terrestrial ecosystems, but
globalization has also accelerated the flow of people, commodities and information, a relentlessprocess that creates new forms of cultural diversity, some of which collide with older traditions,practices and collective identities, generating both challenges and new societal opportunities for
all nation states.
Some of the most entrenched and complex challenges centre on particular kinds of “traditional”
community, which typically form marginalized minorities within larger nation states. The NGO(Non-Governmental Organisation) Survival International broadly defines such groups as “Tribal

7

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

Peoples”, which typically rely heavily on traditional livelihoods and place-based food systems.
More commonly, such groups are defined as “Indigenous peoples” (or “descendent communities”),
whose lifeways and identities emerged from long-term occupation of particular ecosystems ofwhich they often maintain intimate “Traditional Ecological Knowledge”, coupled with strong
inter-generational cultural and spiritual bonds to local landscapes.
Overall, this loosely-defined group of communities makes up around 5,000 distinctive cultures.
These groups maintain the vast majority of the world’s total of 6,700 languages, though many havenow been assigned endangered language status and face acute risk of impending extinction (https://www.un.org/ar/node/135468). Demographically, these groups also form less than 6 per cent of theworld population, but constitute 15 per cent of the poorest sectors of global society. Additional
challenges include the dispersal of these small groups across a hundred different nation states,with many modern political boundaries serving to further fragment and marginalize them, both
demographically, culturally and politically.
It is important to highlight that Indigenous communities need to be defined in relationalterms, as the deep cultural and ancestral affinities to particular places forms only one side of theequation. The other defining criterion is that the communities have been historically impacted bydiverse forms of settler colonialism, commercial resource extraction, and other associated sociocultural and environmental pressures. But before deploying the term “Indigenous”, several further
distinctions are required. First, the generic term “i-ndigenous” (with lower case “I”) simply refers
to any person or thing (human, plant, animal, etc.) that originates in, and is native to, a particularplace or region. In contrast, the carefully-worded UN definition of “indigenous peoples” highlights
the importance of the relational dimension - Indigenous communities are defined as “peoples oflong settlement and connection to specific lands who have been adversely affected by incursions”(https://www.un.org/ar/node/135468). In most cases, these damaging incursions have their
historical roots in European colonial expansion, though several other parts of the world, including
East Asia, experienced their own particular colonial and imperial histories. These legacies are now
highlighted by using “I-ndigenous” – spelt with a capital “I” – to emphasize and acknowledge how
centuries of colonialism have impacted on local communities, leading to displacement, loss andmarginalization (see: https://www.sapiens.org/language/capitalize-indigenous/).

Colonial Encounters
Turning now to the impacts of European colonial expansion, these incursions evolved
historically: they typically started with opportunistic exploration, followed by creation of colonies
and the consolidation of global empires. Most regional trajectories culminate in the emergenceof newly-independent nation states that retain and protect many of the older colonial wealth andpower differentials. However, European colonialism was both global in reach, and relentless in
its quest for commercial opportunities, making it important to highlight the actions, experiences,and destinies of three broad groups of historical actors whose local encounters and interactions
shaped particular colonial outcomes: (i) Indigenous communities – the local communities andoriginal inhabitants of the Americas, Australia and other world regions; (ii) European explorers,
8Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

traders, administrators, and settlers; plus (iii), the millions of African trafficked by Europeans toprovide slave labour in their colonial plantations. Over the centuries, contacts between these three
diverse groups created a complex “middle ground” of multicultural interactions and historicaltransformations that continue to shape and inform regional, national, and community-based socialand civic identities.
Many historical events and processes remain controversial and deeply painful to this day.
These “difficult histories” have long shaped the experiences, memories, and life-chances ofparticular groups that emerged from the colonial encounter; increasingly these legacies areconfronting modern European nation states who have relinquished their colonial and imperial
ambitions, and evolved new forms of collective identity and societal ideologies that can serve togloss over uncomfortable events, actions, and deeper societal legacies. While each European nation
has its own particular history which defines the structure and content of these internal debates about
memory, collective identity, and cultural diversity, there are common trends and experiences thatdefine shared European histories. These overarching themes are explored first at a global scale,paving the way for a more detailed contextual examination of how the Netherlands is still trying
to come to terms with two different - yet equally uncomfortable – chapters in its recent national
history.

PART 1: EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVES ON “INDIGENOUS”
IDENTITY
Theme 1: “Looking Out”: European Expansion and Indigenous Peoples(1500-1950 CE)
By 1500 CE emerging European powers were expanding across the globe. The first wave
was led by Portugal and Spain, with efforts aimed initially on coastal Africa through to South andSoutheast Asia, and also westwards, to the “New World” of the Americas. Their monopolizationof the main southern trade routes to the Orient shaped the second major wave of expansion, which
was led by Dutch, English and French explorers, many seeking alternative northern access routes
via the Canadian and Russian Arctic.
Over time, these combined efforts at exploration led to creation of formal colonies and larger
maritime empires. These later imperial entities were largely dominated by Britain, France andSpain, with some early European colonies evolving into newly independent states after the 18th
C. Throughout this period, significant colonial outposts and territories were also maintained by
Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and other European nations. Meanwhile
the Russian Empire had expanded into northern Eurasia and eventually expanding as far as Alaska.
Russian efforts focused mainly on consolidating income from the Eurasian fur trade via new formsof state taxation.
9

FIGURES
Figures (JPG or TIFFIndigenous
figures (300StudiesDPI)) and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023
Figure 1: Early inter-cultural encounters in the Canadian Arctic: English explorer Martin Frobisher and an early
depiction of Arctic Indigenous peoples (Source: Public Domain).

Figure 1. Early inter-cultural encounters in the Canadian Arctic: English explorer Martin Frobisher
and an early depiction of Arctic Indigenous peoples (Source: Public Domain).
Although European expansion was driven by opportunistic commercial and political instincts,
it was not long before encounters with other cultures captured the fascination of European
educated elites (Figure 1). By the mid 19th C, the convergence of radically new ideas emerging
across geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology started to focus on concepts of deep-time
evolution. For scholars interested in explaining human cultural diversity, evolutionary thinking
provided a useful unilinear framework to assign different cultures into generalized stages ofhuman progress. First, this framework appeared useful for explaining the increasing societal andtechnological sophistication that appeared to characterize the material evidence recovered fromstratified archaeological sequences. Second, but more controversially, evolutionary frameworks
offered a simple but convenient way to survey and classify cultural diversity in a world increasinglycolonized and transformed by European expansion. In its essence, these initially scientific - andeventually political - ideologies concluded that white Euro-Americans – and especially membersof their educated urban elites – were more innovative and progressive than other cultural groups,
while the native peoples of the Americas, Africa, and Australia could be defined as having failed toachieve similar levels of social and technological advancement; they remained trapped within thevarious lower stages of “Barbarism” or more primitive forms of “Savagery” (Figure 2).

26

10Figure 2: Abrupt and violent colonial encounters marked the rapid expansion of European settlement into
Australia. Paintings by
the artist Joseph(1774-1828)
capturetraditional
Indigenous
StudiesLycett
and Cultural
Diversity
Vol.1(1) pp. Aboriginal
6–37, 2023festivals (top) and theimposition of European colonial landscapes and associated Enlightenment ideologies of clearance, enclosure andimprovement (bottom) (Source: State Library of New South Wales, Public Domain).

Figure 2. Abrupt and violent colonial encounters marked the rapid expansion of European settlement
into Australia. Paintings by the artist Joseph Lycett (1774-1828) capture traditional Aboriginal
festivals (top) and the imposition of European colonial landscapes and associated Enlightenment
ideologies of clearance, enclosure and improvement (bottom) (Source: State Library of New South
Wales, Public Domain).
27
11

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

Colonial expansion was not a uniform process and there were many diverse forms of intercultural encounter, each with its own unique historical character. In general, slower processes ofcontact, encroachment, and eventual subjugation marked the European commercial and fiscal
advances into the Indigenous Sami homelands in northern Scandinavia. Similar processes of
expansion and taxation defined early Russian imperial expansions into northern Eurasia, involving
contacts and transformations among a diverse range of Indigenous hunting, fishing and reindeer
herding groups across Siberia. In contrast, more abrupt, deadly, and genocidal confrontations
often marked the arrival of European settlers into other world regions, including the Americas andAustralia. The impacts and legacies of European expansion extended far beyond these opening
contacts, and across the Americas, Australia, and the Arctic, involved transmission of deadly
new diseases, violent expulsions, and other profound disruptions to older Indigenous lifeways.
Demographic collapses hollowed out local populations in the Americas, eventually culminating in
the loss of millions of Indigenous lives. To address the looming labour shortage, European colonial
ventures began the systematic shipment of African slaves to work their new colonial plantations
that were producing the sugar, coffee, tea, and other new products that generated enormous profits
in local European markets.
The cumulative impacts of European colonialism on local cultural diversity were also
profound, ranging from outright exterminations of local populations, through to displacement,
amalgamation of groups, and deeper socio-cultural transformation. After four centuries of colonial
dislocation, the first generation of professional Euro-American anthropologists started to radiateout into remote corners of the globe to urgently document that last surviving member of “timeless”
and “traditional” Indigenous cultures, most of which were believed to face imminent cultural
extinction. These scholars and scientists often shared their journeys with commercial collectors
who eagerly hunted for human, cultural, biological, and geological specimens to equip a newgeneration of urban museums and research institutes. These entangled histories of commercialism,
exploitation, science, and collecting leave a bitter and controversial legacy that is remembereddifferently by various communities, scientific institutions, and nation states.
European colonialism had other unforeseen legacies. By 1950 most European nations werealready downsizing their older imperial ambitions, leading to wider processes of decolonisation andthe emergence of new nation states as older empires fragmented and withdrew, some via peacefultransitions to independence, others involving violent confrontations. Within Europe, many former
colonial nations started to experience large-scale migration from their former empires and colonies,
leading to new forms of domestic cultural encounters, at times challenging and unsettling older
forms of identity and cultural diversity. To understand these reactions - and their contemporary
legacies - it is important to look first at how “internal” European national identities had also evolved
over the centuries of external colonialism.

Theme 2: “Looking In”: Identities and Ethnic Nationalisms in Europe(1850-1950 CE)
12

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

Within Europe, ethnic nationalisms emerged as a growing socio-political reaction against
older imperial and dynastic hegemonies. These new movements challenged the fundamental
political legitimacy of the sprawling multi-cultural empires that had defined “Old Europe.” Whilethese precarious “top-down” power structures focused on maintaining imperial monarchies andsimilar figure of elite authority, the growing ethnic nationalisms that expanded across continental
Europe typically worked from the “bottom up”, mobilizing real - or idealized – expressions oforiginal place-based folk identities to justify autonomy, separatism, and national liberation. As
a result, it was argued that ethnic identities were reflected – or could be actively “discovered” –within shared histories of language and tradition. In turn, particular folk histories were anchoredin the occupation of, and deep ancestral and emotional connections to, particular homelands. The
defining topographic and environmental characteristics of these homelands - mountains, rivers,
forests, and plains – were further used to essentialize distinctive, original, and authentic ethnic
identities.
These collective-identity debates were fluid and situational, and operated across a range of
geographic scales. In their largest and most embracing form, there were various Pan-Germanicand Pan-Slavic national-folk movements which emphasised the need to create larger and moretransformative national-cultural entities out of the chains of mutually-intelligible dialects andclosely-related cultures that were scattered across different parts of the continent. Powerful
movements also emerged at more regional and local scales, especially within older political entities,
such as the increasingly unstable Austro-Hungarian Empire, whose boundaries had long struggled
to contain an eclectic mix of peoples, cultures, and languages. Throughout Central Europe’s slow
process of imperial stagnation and disintegration, culminating in defeat and fragmentation after
WWI, many generations of local activists emerged; typically, they were young, educated andambitious members of the expanding middle classes.
One of many early characters personifying this trend is Ľudovít Štúr (1815-55), the “Father of
Slovak National Consciousness,” who once declared that “my country (Slovakia) is my being, andevery hour of my life shall be devoted to it”. Like many national activists of his time, he devoted
efforts to mobilising the language and folklore of rural Slovak hinterlands. These remoter regions
were widely assumed to have preserved the most authentic and original remnants of ancestral
ethnic heritage, while the larger cities of the Austro-Hungarian Empire had been reduced to multiethnic - and multi-lingual - “melting pots,” rendering them less useful in this slow and forensic
process of recovering pure and original folk identities. Likewise, dialects that were geographically
central to anticipated national territories were also frequently selected as the “purest” expressionsof particular linguistic cultures, making them worthy of eventual codification into the formal
written language of the national group. For example, it was the Banská Bystrica dialect of central
Slovakia that became the foundation for the national language; other peripheral Slovak dialects
were assumed to have been “tainted” by contact with neighbouring ethno-linguistic groups.
While linguistics, folklorists, and ethnographers were busy across Europe, archaeologists
also joined in the action. For the wider discipline, this period marked an important intellectual
shift away from analysis of stratified deposits to reconstruct general sequences of cultural change,
13

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

towards an increasing concern with mapping changing spatial distributions of distinctive artefacts
and cultural features. The major inferential leap was linking the identification and mapping ofthese “archaeological cultures” to the particular histories of specific ancient groups. In turn, it was
not long – and perhaps even inevitable, given the fraught political atmosphere across late 19th C
Europe – before the spatio-temporal mapping of archaeological traits took on a more “ethnic turn,”with discrete archaeological cultures directly expressing the origins, homelands, and ancestral
trajectories of contemporary ethno-linguistic groups. Definitive work in this era was conducted byGerman archaeologist Gustav Kossina, who completed the fateful alignment of culture-historicalarchaeology with wider political aspirations for ethnic-national unification, as a first step towards
eventual territorial expansion to reclaim lost homelands and carve out new living spaces.
Importantly, these developments were not restricted to a newly reunified Germany but can bedetected in one form or another across Europe. For example, in Finland, then within the Russian
Empire, the 19th C period of “National Awakening” focused on developing deeper scientificunderstandings of the collective Finno-Ugric cultural and linguistic ancestry that could pave theway for the emergence of a new and independent nation state. This overarching mission united theFinnish “National Sciences” around philology, ethnology, folklore, and archaeology. Uniquely, thisalso involved linguistic and comparative ethnographic expeditions to affiliated Ob-Ugric language
groups, including the Indigenous Khanty and Mansi of Western Siberia.
In contrast, identity politics in England – by that point forming the largest core nation of GreatBritain – developed down different pathways and never went on to develop a strong and centralised
sense of ethnic English folk identity. Already transformed internally by rampant industrialization,
gradations of social class – and not an underlying folk-based ethnicity – eventually emerged within
England as the major structuring principle of the social order. Interestingly, social evolutionary
thinking (see above) was also projected onto a rigid hierarchy of English social classes, suchthat urban working peoples were assigned - like the Indigenous peoples of the remoter imperialcolonies – to lower stages of development, whose destinies were doomed either by the inherited
traits of laziness and low intelligence, or emerging as worthy objects of paternalistic salvation andopportunistic moral improvement.
Where were all these historical developments leading? Any perceptive political observer gazingout across continental Europe during these protracted struggles over ethnic identities and national
destinies (1850-1930) could not have failed to grasp some of the more sinister implications thatwould eventually converge within these powerful new collective-identity movements. First, ethnic
nationalism – by default – assumed bounded cultural groups, with distinct “peoples” united by ashared primordial inheritance of language, custom, and blood-based genetic ancestry. In turn, these“deep” ethnic histories were deployed to energise and steer – through collective recollections of loss
and grievance, or via shared aspirations to return to earlier “Golden Ages” – powerful campaigns that
addressed future-focused national-political agendas aimed at liberation, unification and expansion.
Second, as this cultural dissection process started to break up Europe’s larger imperial entities,
the inevitable result was a new matrix of national state boundaries that brutally carved across thecomplex on-the-ground realties of older multi-ethnic mosaics. In all cases, minority populations
14

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

became stranded within larger new ethno-political entities, condemning them inevitably to thestatus of second-class citizens. Third, the carving up of Europe into a discrete, ethno-nationalistic
blocks offered tempting opportunities for some intellectuals to arrange this horizontal diversity into
an imagined hierarchy of cultures and peoples – and in more extremist formulations, into discrete
biological races - each possessing divergent potentials for higher socio-cultural development. It
is precisely around this time that ideas about “Higher Nordic Races” also started to crystalize
across Northern Europe. Finally, the most terrifying implications of this increasingly nationalistic
expression of internal European cultural diversity would be felt by smaller groups who were spreadas minorities over the entire continent.
Who were these communities? In many of the colourfully-chaotic ethno-linguistic maps
created by the imperial cartographers of the doomed Austro-Hungarian Empire just prior to WWI,
these groups are listed in the map key but not assigned territories in the map because they arescattered too thinly to ever form a local majority. They are simply listed in terms of overall numbers
and categorized as “dispersed peoples” almost as a bureaucratic afterthought. These groups form
the large pre-WW2 populations of Roma, Sinti, and Jews, and by this point, the grim familiarity
the mid 20th C European history confirms where these powerful national-identity politics would
eventually converge.
The economic chaos that followed WW1 was one catalyst that eventually pushed Germany
towards an aggressively-populist form of ethnic nationalism, whose political ideologies were built
on assertions of inherent Germanic biological and racial superiority over all other cultures andpeoples. Perhaps for the first time, these explicitly racial political agendas were directly supported
by government investment in the work of professional archaeologists, linguistics, anthropologists,and other specialists. These scholars worked within the state-run interdisciplinary “think tank”
of the SS Ahnenerbe (“Ancestral Heritage”) in direct intellectual service of the German National
Socialist State.

15

Figure 3: Promoting “authentic” German lifestyles. A late 1930’s propaganda poster for the “Strength throughJoy” movement in National Socialist Germany. The image highlights the importance of visiting traditional“Germanic” landscapes, with family excursions combining traditional folk values with new technologicaldevelopments (the Volkswagen “People’s car”) and higher standards of living. Also emphasised are particularStudies andCulturalDiversity(1) pp. 6–37,
2023 gender roles, withphysical features of Indigenous
the family members,
theirglowing
health, Vol.1
plus traditional
Germanic
masculinity defined by strength, duty, determination and leadership, and female roles associated with fertility,
family values and guarding the heritage of deeper folk traditions (Source: Public Domain). NOTE – NEED TO
RETAIN BLUE CIRCLE OVER SWASTIKA

Figure 3. Promoting “authentic” German lifestyles. A late 1930’s propaganda poster for the“Strength through Joy” movement in National Socialist Germany. The image highlights theimportance of visiting traditional “Germanic” landscapes, with family excursions combining
traditional folk values with new technological developments (the Volkswagen “People’s car”) thatreflect higher standards of living. Also emphasised are particular physical features of the family
members, their glowing health, plus traditional Germanic gender roles, with masculinity definedby strength, duty, determination and leadership, and female roles associated with fertility, family
values and guarding the heritage of deeper folk traditions (Source: Public Domain).
These national-political developments evolved over time and had many familiar and also
surprising facets. For example, explicit rejection of the international spirit of Communism led
domestic German propaganda of the 1930s to cultivate a deeper ethnic sense of “Land and People”(Figure 3). Organisations like KDF (“Strength through Joy”) celebrated the fusion of modern
German technological achievements with deeper folk traditions, championing explicit gender28
roles for men and women that underlined the moral importance of family and female fertility as
guardians of national identity and collective folk destiny. In turn, these values encouraged the
pursuit of healthy outdoor recreation within the ancestral folk landscapes of the German homeland.
16

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

Iconic species – most centrally the oak tree – came to symbolize a deeper national ideology andworldview and were singled out for special legal protection. Eventually, the unlicensed fellingof “ancestral” German oak trees would be assigned the death penalty (Schama 1995). Aroundthe same time as implementing this extreme form of nature protection legislation, the state wasalso embarking on a twisted journey that would culminate in the industrial-scale exterminationof millions of innocent people; these events are now defined as the Porrajmos (“the Devouring” –Roma and Sinti groups) and the Holocaust (European Jews).

Theme 3: Convergent Legacies – History, Memory and Identity in
Multicultural Europe
Out of the wreckage of WWII emerged the “New European Dream.” This sought to combine
diversity and independence with the ideals of unity and integration. All this required a new and more
civic variant of national identity, with citizens protected by legalistic commitments to universal
human rights. This shared European framework could then support new kinds of cultural diversity
reinforced by commitments to shared prosperity and freedom of equal movement for peoples,
goods and services. In this way, this more ethical, optimistic and better-integrated Europe could
rise from the ashes and leave behind, once and for all, all the senseless conflicts that had defined thefirst half of the 20th C. These more recent developments have created a new context in which manydifferent forms of identity and diversity are starting to converge. Specifically, after five hundredyears of expanding outwards, Europe’s colonial legacies were finally “coming home” – the result
has been the emergence of increasingly multicultural – and in some cities and districts – evenmajority ethnic communities. But how are the constituent nations of the New Europe dealing withthese uniquely complex and entangled legacies of “external” colonialism (“we’re here because youwere over there”), as well as the memories of the “internal” conflicts, persecution and genocide thatdefined the mid 20th C? These details are best examined at the national scale.

PART 2: NATIONAL CASE-STUDY: THE NETHERLANDSThe Netherlands provides a particularly interesting case-study because it played a central- yet frequently overlooked - role in leading early European colonial expansion, which included
sustained involvement in the African slave trade. Moreover, it was subject to German wartime
occupation during WWII, culminating in the transportation and extermination of the majority of
its large Dutch Jewish community. To understand how and why these two “difficult histories” still
figure so highly in contemporary debate and national acts of commemoration and apology, it isimportant to look first at the main developments in Dutch national history.

Overview of the Netherlands History (1500-1950)
Until late Medieval times what is now the Kingdom of the Netherlands formed a low and17

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

swampy maze of rivers and wetlands undergoing a slow and steady process of reclamation. The
region did not play a major role in wider European developments until the late 1500’s with resistanceto Spanish domination, emergence of an independent republic, and the sudden influx of rich
Flemish refugees – including a large proportion of Sephardic Jews – from Antwerp into the sleepy
port of Amsterdam and surrounding cities. Historians continue to debate the precise causes of thesedevelopments, but the consequences were spectacular – this sudden concentration of knowledge,
finance, international contacts and human capital, combined with an optimal geographic locationthat straddled older and emerging international trade routes, kick-started what eventually became
known as the “Dutch Golden Age.”
Over the next hundred years the Netherlands underwent a spectacular process of development,
leading global developments in commerce, shipping, exploration, finance, high art, and elegant
new forms of urbanization. Dutch navigators pioneered the exploration and mapping of manyof the remotest corners of the globe, stretching from Svalbard (“Spitsbergen”) in the Arctic to
New Zealand at the edges of Antarctica. New Dutch commercial entities pooled investment andshared risk to create companies that drove an expanding wave of trade, resource exploitation, andthe establishment of new colonial outposts. The middle decades of this “golden century” formed
the high-water mark of the Netherlands’ imperialistic ambitions - Dutch companies were running
whaling stations in the Arctic, operating slave-trading stations in Africa and the Caribbean, andfounding colonies and plantations across the Americas, including New Amsterdam (now New York
City). In East Asia, they consolidated control of Indonesia, established outposts in Taiwan and evensecured monopoly trading rights with the closed empire of Japan.
Intense rivalry with England also ensued over access to primary shipping and trade routes,
with the Netherlands prevailing in several cycles of maritime warfare. Arguably, the ultimate
triumph for the Netherlands was the “invasion” of England by a sizeable Dutch army in 1688,
which enabled Mary and her Dutch husband William of Orange to seize the throne and re-stablish
a resolutely Protestant lineage (these events are glossed by English historians as “The Glorious
Revolution”). However, coeval with these moves was a steady shift in global business operations
from Amsterdam towards London, which quickly gained ascendancy, leaving the Netherlands toenter into a long period of relative economic decline. Overall, the Netherlands dropped its larger
imperial ambitions and for the next two centuries focused on more lucrative commercial activities
centred on its main colonies in Indonesia, the Caribbean, and Surinam in South America.
Skillful geopolitical positioning enabled the Netherlands to remain neutral in WWI, ensuring
it remained one of the wealthiest, most stable, and tolerant countries in Europe in 1920. Events
unfolded differently in WWII. The Netherlands was attacked by Nazi Germany in May 1940,
surrendered quickly, and experienced five years of occupation. Several factors make this acontroversial chapter in national history. First, the occupying Germans viewed the Dutch as a
Germanic “sister” culture with shared ancestry and a common historical destiny; they sought tointegrate and “Nazify” the Dutch population via a civic rather than military occupation. This tactic
meant that all the main state institutions remained in operation throughout the occupation, staffed
as before, by Dutch citizens. Second, resistance to the occupation was initially slow to develop and18

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

focused mainly on information gathering and production of illegal newspapers. In contrast, there
were significant levels of collaboration with the German occupiers at all levels of society. Overall,most people were compelled to operate in the morally-complex “middle ground” between thesetwo polarized positions, though many people went into hiding towards the end of the conflict.
Third, the Netherlands was eventually liberated by Allied forces – Polish, Canadian, British andAmericans - with most of the cities in the western Netherlands surviving intact, although many
civilians perished in the final “Hunger Winter” due to collapsing food supplies. Finally, one of themost enduring academic and societal legacies of the occupation has been the need to adequately
explain the sheer scale of the Dutch Holocaust. The Dutch Jewish population was quickly strippedof its legal status, marginalized, and the vast majority then transported to eastern extermination
camps.
The immediate post war period (1945-50) was also difficult, but for different reasons. First,
the nation needed to repair damage and extensive flooding caused by the final battles of liberation.
Second, the Dutch Holocaust left complex ethical and legal issues pertaining to compensation
and restoration of property rights. Third, there were difficult questions about the roles played byindividuals, communities, and institutions during the occupation. Overall, the Netherlands managed
to avoided large-scale lynching and general blood-letting after the liberation, but head-shaving andthe parading of traitors was followed by formal trials and a handful of executions for the highestprofile collaborators, offering some sense of justice and “closure.”
On the international stage, however, the initial Netherlands reaction was essentially nationalistic
and colonial. Within Europe, it campaigned for the Bakker-Schut Plan - “Oostland - Ons Land”(East land - Our land) – which would have involved annexing large tracts of western Germany
as reparations to create a larger and strategically secure Netherlands. Local German populations(who spoke Low German dialects similar to Dutch) would be either forcefully assimilated into
mainstream Dutch society or subject to what is now called “ethnic cleansing.” By 1947 this idea wasdefinitively vetoed by an Allied Command that was increasingly concerned about the stability of a
newly-democratic West Germany within the tense geopolitics of the early Cold War. Meanwhile,in East Asia, the main Dutch colonies in Indonesia had been liberated by the Allies but it took
months before representatives of the post-war Dutch government could arrive and attempt to reestablish colonial authority. Meanwhile, it was clear that local populations were already seeking
autonomy from their former European masters. The Netherlands embarked on a short, savage, andultimately doomed attempt at counter-insurgency warfare to maintain their white colonial rule,though Indonesia achieved formal independence in 1949.

Building the New National Identity (1960-2010): Celebrating “GoldenAge” Heritage
From the late 1950s there was a tangible sense in the Netherlands that it was time to move on
and embrace the “New European Dream” in a uniquely Dutch manner. This new national “branding”
exercise involved the Netherlands presenting itself as a fresh, outward-looking, yet internally19

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

confident nation. It was proudly historic, but also progressively modern, tolerant, innovative andethicale. The new courts of international justice found a welcoming home in The Hague, and theNetherlands also led early steps in campaigning for increased European economic integration thateventually led to creation of the European Union.
In its own unique way, Dutch archaeology and cultural heritage also found particular roles toplay in the forging of this new narrative, though only certain elements were used to illustrate the highpoints of the national-historical “journey.” First, slow and steady work on domestic archaeological
heritage dating to the prehistoric and medieval periods essentially continued as before. Overall,knowledge and understanding benefitted greatly from rescue excavation, research-led projects,
and extensive interest from amateur archaeologists, but the main producers and consumers were
essentially academics and enthusiasts. Second, and in stark contrast, anything connected to thenational glories of the 17th C Dutch Golden Age – architecture, fine art, maritime history, andheritage – all captured the national imagination. They were all actively promoted to shape wider
international perceptions of the late 20th C Netherlands, including the elegant architecture of central
Amsterdam, Utrecht, Haarlem, and Leiden, combined with the treasures in the National Museum(Rijksmuseum). Together with windmills, tulips, bicycles, and edam cheese, the iconography of
the Dutch Golden Age came to define a unique “national brand” that attracts millions of tourists
and still sells Dutch products and services worldwide.
Against this backdrop, historical archaeologists born directly after the German occupation
also sought out Dutch national heritage in remoter corners of the globe, retracing the footstepsof “heroic” Golden Age explorers as far afield as distant Arctic archipelagos (Figure 4). In termsof theory and method, the overarching research goals were as clear as they were simplistic - torecover the material traces of “our people,” and to use this cultural heritage to illustrate and re-tell
the national-populist narrative. Projects included efforts in the late 1970s to early 1980s to excavate
European whaling stations and cemeteries on Svalbard. Particular emphasis was focused on the siteof Smeerenburg which had originated as a Danish-Dutch joint enterprise, and eventually been takenover by the Dutch whaling companies in the brief but intensive “Whaling Wars” of the mid 17th
C. Both scientific and more popular interpretations – published overwhelmingly in Dutch - haveconsistently framed these events in terms of national-heroic competition, culminating in eventual
Dutch triumph and the domination of Svalbard whaling operations. However, this “victory” wasshort-lived as the collapse of local marine mammal populations to extinction levels drove European
whaling fleets to explore other regions. Other activities by recent Dutch archaeological expeditions
have included placement of commemorative plaques at sites where 17th C Dutch crews perished inearly attempts to over winter on remote Arctic islands to protect whaling stations and stores fromraiders. Other plaques have been placed on the Russian Arctic islands of Novaya Zemlya where
Willem Barentsz and his crew were stranded in their early efforts to navigate the Northeast Passage
over Arctic Russia and through to East Asia.

20

Figure 4. National-populist high points in Dutch “Fatherland History” (“Vaderlandse Geschiedenis”). Top:
traditional picture board used in school history classes (now popular collectors’ items); bottom left: 17th C whaler
hat with personalized design recovered from frozen graves on Svalbard and now displayed in the National
Museum in Amsterdam;
bottom right:“DutchHollywood”posterfrom(1)thepp.
popular
Indigenous
Studiesand Cultural
Diversity
Vol.1
6–37, 20122023 film “Nova Zembla”
which retells the heroic story of the doomed Willem Barentsz expedition to discover the Northeast Passage overnorthern Siberia to the Orient. The film takes the form of a “happy ending” love story (The elderly Barentsz
perished but some crew survived and eventually made it home to their loved ones). (sources: Public Domain).

Figure 4. National-populist high points in Dutch “Fatherland History” (“Vaderlandse
Geschiedenis”). Top: traditional picture board used in school history classes (now popularcollectors’ items); bottom left: 17th C whaler hat with personalized design recovered from frozen
graves on Svalbard and now displayed in the National Museum in Amsterdam; bottom right:“Dutch Hollywood”- poster from the popular 2012 film “Nova Zembla” which retells the heroic
story of the doomed Willem Barentsz expedition to discover the Northeast Passage over northern29
Siberia to the Orient. The film takes the form of a “happy ending” love story (The elderly Barentsz
perished but some crew survived and eventually made it home to their loved ones). (sources: Public
21

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

Domain).
Some of this fragile heritage was eventually brought “home” from the Arctic and housed likesacred national treasures in Amsterdam’s Rijksmuseum. Personal work-a-day items include therows of knitted hats recovered from the frozen graves of whalers buried on Svalbard (Figure 4).
The proud narrative primarily revolves around the exploits of the brave and enterprising “WhiteMan” up against “Raw Nature”; often, this involves fighting with polar bears (Figure 4) but does
not include encounters with local Arctic peoples (Svalbard has no Indigenous cultures). In this way,
the national nostalgia for this heroic period of polar exploration and early commercial exploitation
enjoys an elegant moral and ethical simplicity; this stands in stark contrast to the more contentious
histories of other Dutch colonial ventures that were developing at the same time in the Americas
and East Asia (see below).
On a domestic level. these national-populist polar “legends” continue to garner significant
public interest and enthusiasm. In 2012, “Dutch Hollywood” jumped into action to produce “Nova
Zembla” which retells the fate of the doomed Willem Barentsz expedition in terms of a lovestory. Internationally, the polar heritage of “our people” has also played a more pragmatic andopportunistic role in supporting Dutch national claims to Svalbard Treaty Rights, and furthermore,in securing the Netherlands Observer Status in the Arctic Council, a new political body createdat the end of the Cold War to develop closer circumpolar political collaborations on key issues.
Finally, the history of Dutch maritime exploration has also been recycled at the other end of theworld – a first ever “Netherlands Antarctic Station” was officially opened with a flurry of flags by
the parka-wearing future Dutch King Willem-Alexander in 2013. This “pop-up” research station
takes the form of portable labs housed in four shipping containers, which are parked at the edgeof Rothera, one of the main operating bases of the British Antarctic Survey. In a burst of romantic
national pride, the Dutch drew directly on “Golden Age” heritage and named their new station
after Dirck Gerritsz, possibly the first European to sight Antarctica in 1637. Furthermore, the four
shipping containers are named after the four ships of his expedition: Hoop (Hope), Liefde (Love),
Blijde Boodschap (Annunciation) and Geloof (Belief).

Commemorating Difficult Histories (1): The Occupation Years (1940-45)
Collective remembrance of the controversial WWII German occupation stands in stark contrast
to the central visibility of the Dutch Golden Age within the new national narrative. The difficult
issue is how a stable and prosperous democracy, with deeply-embedded commitments to tolerance,
diversity, and openness, could allow so many of its fellow citizens to be transported away andexterminated. More specifically, what role did the state, national institutions, and everyday citizens
play in these traumatic years? Memory and commemoration have evolved over the decades into
different directions. Originally marked every five years, an annual event has now been held from1990. This starts with the sombre“Dodenherdenking (“Remembrance of the Dead” held on May4), focusing on memory of all victims of violent conflict. Wreaths are laid by the royal family and22

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

political leaders at the National Memorial in Dam Square, Amsterdam, with similar ceremonies
across the entire country. The next day forms the Bevrijdingsdag (“Liberation Day” on May 5th)
with large raucous music parties held in city parks and arenas, often lasting all night. For foreigners
living within the Netherlands, the precise significance of these events can be obscure, especially
Figure 5: Scenes from a difficult chapter in Dutch national history. Left: Recruitment poster from the period ofsince
only Dutch
flagsofandcolours
displayed.
Canadianflags rarely
figurethe German
occupation
the national
Netherlands.
It asksare“Whichof these In
twocontrast,is the genuine
Dutchman?”,and appeals
to
young
Dutch
men
to
express
theirmasculinity
anddeeperloyalty
totheNetherlands
byjoining
specially-created- and Polish flags are never ever displayed - despite that fact that Allied troops from these othernational units of the Waffen SS – note the Dutch flag on the lower left arm of the uniform (many thousands ofnations
spearheaded
thecalladvancenorthern
sufferedsignificant
casualties
Dutch menfollowed theand wentinto
on totheservewith theNetherlands
Waffen SS in andRussia,Yugoslavia,
France andin the“defence”
of theirown homelandagainst the eventual Allied “invasion”). Right: physical scars still visible fromalong
the way(Figure5).
the Battle of Groningen (April 1945), which saw several days of bitter street fighting between Canadian troops ofthe 2nd Infantry Division and members of the Dutch SS, NSB and German Wehrmacht (Source: Public Domain).

Figure 5. Scenes from a difficult chapter in Dutch national history. Left: Recruitment poster fromthe period of the German occupation of the Netherlands. It asks “Which of these two is the genuine
Dutchman?”, and appeals to young Dutch men to express their masculinity and deeper loyalty to
the Netherlands by joining specially-created national units of the Waffen SS – note the Dutch flagon the lower left arm of the uniform (many thousands of Dutch men followed the call and went
on to serve with the Waffen SS in Russia, Yugoslavia, France and in the “defence” of their own
homeland against the eventual Allied “invasion”). Right: physical scars still visible from the Battleof Groningen (April 1945), which saw several days of bitter street fighting between Canadian
troops of the 2nd Infantry Division and members of the Dutch SS, NSB and German Wehrmacht(Source: Public Domain).
All these features – and especially the ubiquity of the national flag - suggest this is an entirely
Dutch national commemoration that cherishes celebrated national values. But external observers
may also be justified in wondering who was being liberated, by whom and from what? And incommemorating only the victims of conflict, is there a collective societal amnesia about more
controversial aspects of this historical period, including the role of active collaborators and passive
bystanders? In fact, the reality of this “memory debate” is more nuanced and marked by intense
academic and public discussion, most of which is conducted within the national language media.
23

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

Importantly, it is clear that the Netherlands has never attempted to steer or suppress a deep
and open fact-based examination of this intensely difficult period, or to withhold these insights
and information from wider public scrutiny. For example, the government immediately establishedthe Netherlands Institute for War Documentation in May 1945 whose work culminated with amassive 14-volume standard work on Dutch wartime history. Over time this organisation mergedwith the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies (CHGS) to form the current NIOD Institutefor War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies (Dutch: NIOD Instituut voor Oorlogs-, Holocaust- en
Genocidestudies), now an internationally-renowned centre of expertise.
The central issue in the national historiography of this period is explaining the “Dutch
paradox” - the question is how could a stable democracy with a long tradition of diversity andreligious tolerance become the nation with the lowest Holocaust survival rates in occupied western
Europe. Both Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews had been migrating to the Netherlands for centuries
and were dispersed across the country. The Dutch Jewish community had particular concentrationsin Amsterdam, forming a stable and significant ethnic minority, which varied between 1.4% to2.2% of the total Netherlands population between the 1800–1940 period (Knippenberg 2022).
When the Germans occupied the Netherlands in 1940, all Jews, most of whom were Dutch
citizens, were immediately classified as a separate, inferior race. In 1941 these racial criteria wereused to classify around about 140,000 ‘full-Jews’ (all grandparents Jewish). Two core statistics
highlight what happened next. First, around 107,000 Jews were transported from the Netherlands
and murdered. Only 5,200 survived the concentration camps. Second, at the peak of weekly traintransports, the membership of the NSB Dutch Nazi Party (Dutch: De Nationaal-Socialistische
Beweging in Nederland) had surged to around 100,000. Many of these individuals served in mid tolower governmental roles, as well as in other key regional and local bureaucratic and administrativeroles. Together, these figures mean that for every Jewish man, woman and child being transported
eastwards to the camps, there was a Dutch citizen directly serving the goals and policies of theGerman occupiers. Of course, it is also vital to emphasize that throughout the German occupation
there were many, many thousands of acts of brave resistance across all sectors of Dutch society,including the sheltering of many thousands of Jewish citizens. Although the resistance movement
was slow to emerge and essentially non-violent in nature, many activities ended in arrest, execution,
or deportation to the extermination camps.
More generally, the scale of the Dutch Holocaust is often explained by several factors(Knippenberg 2022). First, the Netherlands was subject to a united and very effective governmentof occupation enabling the German SS to exert strong and direct influence over daily societal
affairs. Second, the wider Dutch population and especially the main bureaucratic structures
were essentially cooperative, either passively, or in some cases more actively. Third, the Jewish
community in the pre-war Netherlands was largely integrated and assimilated into wider society,and like the rest of the population, also tended to comply with orders issued during the onset of
the German occupation. Other contributing factors include the developed Dutch state bureaucracy
which made it easy to identify and locate individuals with Jewish ancestry, as well as early steps
taken by the Germans to isolate the Jewish population via simple measures including exclusion
24

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

from certain public spaces, removal of basic legal and property rights, followed by targeted roundup operations. Finally, the flat and densely-settled Dutch landscape offered few opportunities tohide from persecution, and to escape round-ups and targeted arrests.
Over time, however, the national debate about this excruciatingly-sensitive issue has evolved
and changed. To briefly summarize a large body of significant national research, initial post-war
studies tended to deploy simple quasi-judicial categories of “wrong” versus “right”, or “guilty”
versus “innocent”, also expressed in binary black-and-white terms (i.e. “black” as the occupying
Germans, plus an actively collaborating Dutch minority; “white” as the occupied Dutch, including
members of the resistance). Later Dutch scholarship sought to move beyond these binary blackwhite “innocent” versus “guilty” formulations, and explore the contextual role of a more ambiguous“grey” category of actors whose decisions and interactions also shaped historical outcomes.
These “grey” people are primarily the “bystanders” – the everyday Dutch citizens who weremaking difficult choices and opportunistic compromises as they struggled to “muddle through”
exceptionally challenging and uncertain times. At the centre of this “grey” historiography is theargument that all groups and individuals, whether general bystanders, perpetrators and resistancemembers, had – at least in certain brief moments - some degree of choice, however constrainedby particular events and circumstances. While these day-to-day judgements were often based on
incomplete information and balanced perceived risks with potential gains, the argument is that thesum total of these cumulative actions generated a powerful contextual dynamic that ultimately
shaped historic outcomes.

The Role of National Institutions
As the deeper implications of this “grey” historiography have gained momentum acrossDutch society, the Netherlands has experienced a string of official apologies for the role of stateorganisations in the Holocaust. For example, after 1942, the state-owned national rail company,
Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS) was awarded lucrative business contracts from the German SS
to run the weekly transport trains. These trains – and the wider rail network - were staffed andmanaged by Dutch employees and carried tens of thousands of Dutch Jews – including Anne
Frank – in packed cattle trucks to the German border, from where they were moved onwards tothe eastern extermination camps. While railway strikes were eventually held in the Netherlands inthe closing months of the war, the vast majority of Dutch Jews had already been removed fromnational territory by this point. The same company continues to run the national rail network tothis today. In 2019 the director of NS made a formal apology for the direct role of the company inthe Dutch Holocaust and launched a financial compensation scheme for any remaining survivors.
Other national apologies were timed to coincide with the 75th anniversary of the liberationof the extermination camps in 1945. In May 2020, both the Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte,and King Willem-Alexander, made separate formal apologies on behalf of the Netherlands for its
involvement in the Holocaust, as well as for the difficult treatment and bureaucratic obstructions
faced by the few survivors in their quest for restoration of looted property after they returned.
Overall, the carefully-phrased message was that “Sobibor started in Vondelpark” – in other25

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

words, the road leading to the extermination camps started first with removal of smaller rights
and liberties, including the ability of Jewish citizens to enter the large civic parks of Amsterdam.
More specifically, the apologies also highlighted the ambiguous conduct of the wider “bystander”
population – including members of the exiled royal family – in not doing enough to acknowledge
the persecution and suffering of its own citizens, and to do more - and start much earlier – inshielding and protecting the Dutch Jewish community.

The Role of Dutch Academia
It is also possible to find traces of this “grey” historiography amidst the architecture andsymbolism of Dutch higher-education institutions, many of which are today leading primaryacademic research into key events and individuals of the occupation years. For example, theUniversity of Groningen (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen) is one of the oldest Dutch universities andwas opened during the Dutch Golden Age in 1614. Over three hundred years later, it remained open
throughout the German wartime occupation, though it was steadily integrated into the National
Socialist administration. Today, the grand staircase of the main academic building contains a blackcommemorative stone marking the names of all staff and students who perished between 194045, many in death camps, others executed after brave acts of resistance. The top of the staircase
leads on into the grand academic hall where aspiring researchers defend their PhDs and where new
professors hold inaugural lectures. All these awards and distinctions are officially bestowed by
the university’s Rector Magnificus. In one part of the large stained-glass windows that shed soft,
colourful light on these formal proceedings, there is a dedication to the Dutch Jewish intellectual
Leonard Polak, a local university professor who died at Sachsenhausen concentration camp,
becoming one of Groningen’s first Holocaust victims.
Information about the events and personalities that defined the role of the university in theoccupation are by no means withheld - or are in any was made secret – but serve to illuminate
the controversial roles played by some Dutch academics in this period. In 1940, the Germans
occupiers imposed a new Rector Magnificus on the university, who was promoted from within its
own Faculty of Letters, albeit in direct breach of university autonomy. The aging Johannes M.N.
Kapteyn was a Dutch Germanist whose research had sought to highlight the deeper Pan Germanicroots of the Netherlands’ Frisian and Saxon populations. One of his first acts during the occupation
was to oversee the sacking of all Dutch Jewish teaching staff from the university; in March 1941
all Jewish students were also excluded – the new regulations were initially tolerated by both theacademic and student community. Kapteyn also played a very direct and personal role in betraying
and incriminating Leonard Polak for alleged anti-German sentiment, and these actions led directly
to his arrest and death. At his eventual trial just after the war, the frail Kapteyn pleaded to being“educated but naive” but died before he could be sentenced. By 2005, a new Rector Magnificus
stated that the university had done too little to save Polak and that it should feel “deep shame” forallowing Nazi sympathisers to be inserted so easily into senior academic roles.
Later in the German occupation, Kapteyn was replaced by a new “puppet” leader, Herman
Maximilien de Burlet, who was an NSB member. Later phases of the occupation created more
26

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

difficult choices for the university community. After all Jewish students were banned from student
organisations, combined with closure of the student newspaper, the student community took thebrave step of boycotting lectures in 1943. The response was harsh – all students needed to sign adeclaration of loyalty or would be conscripted for labour duty in Germany. Choices were made:around ten percent of the students signed the pledge of loyalty document; others reported for workand some went into hiding for the rest of the war.
Dutch archaeologists were also involved in these turbulent events – one of the most enigmatic
figures was Assien Bohmers, affiliated for many decades with Groningen University’s Biological
Archaeological Institute (BAI). In the late 1930s he had already developed very close academic ties
to the SS Ahnenerbe, including a strong professional relationship with its Director, Wolfram Sievers,
who was eventually found guilty of crimes against humanity and hung in 1948. Historical analysis
concludes that Bohmers was self-focused, driven, and opportunistic (Carmiggelt 2019). Whenviewed from this perspective, his cultivation and manipulation of personal connections with the SS
Ahnenerbe were clearly important in securing rapid professional advancement, including access toimportant career-defining archaeological collections. In contrast, his academic publications madeno explicit reference to Nazi racial doctrine and nor was he a formal member of the SS. However,
he did subscribe to the widespread belief – fairly typical across academia at that time - that North
Europeans and certain East Asian cultures had a capacity for higher cultural development that
Africans and Australian Aborigines generally lacked.
Although arrested and interviewed by Canadian Military Intelligence after the Allied liberationof Groningen, the investigators were probably asking the wrong kinds of question about his roles
and activities, and he was eventually released. He remained on the university academic staff until the
1960s and retired with full pension (Carmiggelt 2019). Overall, these kinds of detailed biographic
analyses of significant – albeit controversial – historical figures generates further insights intosome of the “grey” workings of Dutch academia in the decades prior to and also after the German
occupation.

Discussion: Shaping National Memory Debates
Across the Netherlands, there are now thousands of monuments referencing the people,
places, and events that defined the horrors of the occupation years. These range from small plaquesat the execution sites of resistance fighters in remote forests, through to “stumbling stones” in thecobbled streets marking the names of fates of particular Holocaust victims. Many critical heritage
initiatives are now underway, aiming to educate current and future generations about the complex
lessons to be drawn from this period of “difficult history.” Larger projects include work on the“camp-scapes” of Westerbork, the main railway transit camp used for the transportation of victims
to the extermination camps. All these memorials, exhibitions, and commemorations expose theoperation of both explicit - and implicit - decision-making processes that guide primary societal
narratives by selecting certain individuals, images or artefacts for presentation while glossing
over and concealing others. Together, these intersections generate the process by which collective
memory is actively shaped, updated, and transformed by the cumulative actions of curators, cultural
27

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

critics, and academic researchers, as well as the expectations of survivors, their descendants, andthe streams of public visitors.
So would it be correct to conclude that the annual May 4th commemorations and May 5thcelebrations represent a carefully choreographed exercise in collective “societal amnesia”, a kindof deliberate “un-remembering,” of many of the more controversial and sensitive aspects of theGerman occupation? Or is something more subtle involved? Overall, Dutch society continues toengage in a frank, vigorous, and fact-based assessment of this most painful chapter in its recent
national history. Also important is the widespread effort invested in linking the latest academic
developments in understanding the evolving historiographic analysis of the occupation to collective
commemoration of that period. Factual and moral dimensions are actively taught in schools andshared with the wider public.
In discussing the occupation years, it also important not to lose sight of the fact that events arestill grounded in a brutal historical logic – the Netherlands did not initiate WWII, it was a neutral
country invaded by a larger neighbouring power. In other words, it was indeed a victim of external
military aggression and all subsequent events unfolded from that pivotal moment. At the sametime, however, many personal actions and interventions in this complex chain of events simply
remain “difficult history” – information is widely available but the national narrative generally
settles on the clearer and more acceptable themes of invasion, suffering, resistance, and eventual
liberation. Interestingly, other aspects of recent national history have experienced similar treatment
but for other complex reasons. These include the conduct of Dutch military forces in the Indonesiancounter-insurgency campaigns of the late 1940s (Doolan 2019), also the subject of state apologies
by the Dutch Foreign Minister in 2016 and King Willem Alexander in 2020.

Difficult Histories (2): Revisionist Perspectives on the “Dutch Golden
Age”
Other aspects of Dutch national history are also undergoing renewed reflection and growing
critique, especially the role of the Netherlands in leading European colonial expansion, especiallythe sustained and substantial Dutch role in organising and profiting from slave trading. These
memory debates have a different dynamic. In many ways, this critique levels a more direct assault
on the cherished “Dutch Golden Age” of national-cultural achievement. Moreover, many of themore controversial aspects of this period have been glossed over in the national consciousness
because they largely – at least from a Dutch perspective – took place in remoter corners of theworld and could be quietly forgotten. Until relatively recently, the topic of slavery never figured
highly in school education, nor in the contemporary national consciousness.
Revisionist critique first emerged from the museums sector around ten years ago, highlightingthat the concept of a “Dutch Golden Age” was, at best, a creation of national-popular pride that28

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

did not reflect the historical reality of the period. At worst, it was argued to be outdated, elitistand deliberately blind to poverty and exploitation, and that is should be replaced by more neutralchronological terms such as the “seventeenth-century Netherlands”. Initially, curators and historians
highlighted the fate of poorer classes within the Netherlands both in cities and rural hinterlands.
For example, it was known from the outset that many of the “heroic” Dutch whaling crews buriedin Svalbard (see above) were essentially poor, older men in acute bad health, faced with few othereconomic options, and probably forming a wider maritime “underclass” that serviced the demandsof the expanding commercial fleets. Indeed, only around two-thirds of the crews were actuallyregistered as Dutch, others sailors came from “other places.” However, this kind of class-based
critique (or highlighting the ecological devastation on marine mammal populations inflicted by the
Dutch fleets that triumphed in the 17th C “Whaling Wars” in the seas around Svalbard) has nevergained wider public or academic traction within the Netherlands, perhaps due to the enduring
national nostalgia for the events of this period. Likewise, the artistic and architectural treasures of
the 17th C continue to define the successful Dutch national “brand.”Historic Dutch Involvement in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade
A more intense public debate now centres on the details and contemporary significanceof the deep Dutch involvement in trafficking slaves. First, the sustained Dutch involvement inpeople-trafficking is beyond dispute. As an aspiring colonial power, Dutch participation in slave
trading brought immense profits flooding back into 17th C Amsterdam and other Dutch cities andinstitutions. The proceeds were pivotal in the creation of early national wealth, supporting further
commercial expansion. Dutch companies were responsible for half of all slaves shipped to the
New World between 1650 and 1675. By the end of the 19th C around 600,000 Africans had beentransported in Dutch ships, forming around 6% of the 12 million Africans shipped by Europeans to
the New World. Second, the Netherlands was also the last European nation to abolish slavery, andwhile the trade in slaves was made illegal in 1814, slavery remained in place in the Dutch colonial
plantations until 1863. After abolition, the Dutch owners were compensated for their financial loss,
but freed slaves continued to work as indentured laborers for another decade, until replaced by thearrival of Asian workers.

29

Africa. Here African slaves were obtained by Dutch merchants from local brokers and shipped to the Americas.
The Dutch captured the fort from the Portuguese in 1637 and the entire Portuguese Gold Coast in 1642, renaming
it the “Dutch Gold Coast”. The Netherlands ran major slave trading operations from Fort Elmina until 1814
(source: Blaeu-Van der
Hem Atlas(datedandca 1665-1668),
vol. 36:19,
fol.(1)62 pp.
- 63,6–37,(16), 2023
Austrian National Library
Indigenous
Studies
Cultural Diversity
Vol.1(http://data.onb.ac.at/rec/baa13770845).

Figure 6. The Netherlands flag flies proudly over Fort Elmina (circa 1667), a major Dutch slavetrading in West Africa. Here African slaves were obtained by Dutch merchants from local brokers
and shipped to the Americas. The Dutch captured the fort from the Portuguese in 1637 and theentire Portuguese Gold Coast in 1642, renaming it the “Dutch Gold Coast”. The Netherlands ran
major slave trading operations from Fort Elmina until 1814 (source: Blaeu-Van der Hem Atlas(dated ca 1665-1668), vol. 36:19, fol. 62 - 63, (16), Austrian National Library (http://data.onb.
ac.at/rec/baa13770845).

3130

Figure 7: High-profile
contributions
to andthe Cultural(inter)national
debateabout
the 6–37,
sustained
Indigenous
Studies
Diversity
Vol.1(1) pp.
2023historical role of theNetherlands in the Atlantic slave trade. To raise awareness and stimulate public debate Amsterdam’s Rijksmusem
has curated a series of path-breaking exhibitions, books and documentary films, all combined with resources thatalign with the updated versions of national education curriculum (Source: Public Domain).

Figure 7. High-profile contributions to the (inter)national debate about the sustained historicalrole of the Netherlands in the Atlantic slave trade. To raise awareness and stimulate public debate
Amsterdam’s Rijksmusem has curated a series of path-breaking exhibitions, books and documentaryfilms, all combined with resources that align with the updated versions of national education
curriculum (Source: Public Domain).
The “triangular” character of the Atlantic slave trade meant that the trafficking of Africans wasnever witnessed directly within the Netherlands. First, ships of the WIC (West India Company) left
Dutch harbours and sailed for West Africa loaded with weapons, ammunition, liquor, and textiles.
These goods were used to buy slaves from local intermediaries. Slaves were first corralled andthen shipped across to colonies in the Americas. Like many European nations, the Netherlands
developed its own company-owned slave-trading posts in West Africa, including Fort Elmina(Figure 6), which formed part of the “Dutch Gold Coast” that was run by the WIC. Second, withgrowing competition for profitable colonies, the WIC had switched efforts from running vulnerable
outputs to profiting from the more safe and lucrative slave trade. Curaçao in the Caribbean emergedin the 17th C as a major slave-trading hub, where the Dutch sold on fresh shipments of Africans to
the Spanish, English, Portuguese, and French colonies for a steep profit (Curaçao remains today apart of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and has now emerged as a popular Dutch long-haul holiday
destination). Third, the slave ships would then return to the Netherlands laden with sugar, coffee,
cotton, cocoa, or tobacco, all grown on plantations. While Amsterdam’s merchants and bankers
profited most, smaller Dutch business including sailmakers, carpenters, and shipyards enjoyeda lively business from the slave trade. In the 18th C the Netherlands started to lose its dominancein the slave trade, with Britain taking over this role. Instead, Dutch efforts focus on its remainingcolonies including Surinam, whose plantations continue to require a slave labour force; in total, theDutch shipped around 300,000 Africans to this colony.
32
31

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

Modern Legacies: Dutch Slave-Trading Histories
The scale and significance of Dutch involvement in the Atlantic slave trade has long been
overlooked in populist national narratives of the Dutch Golden Age but this “difficult history”
has now burst into wider public debate and shows no sign of disappearing. Overall, it was theinnovative Dutch museums sector, combined with local community leaders in the major cities,
who took bold and early steps to improve wider public awareness. In a manner quite untypical ofnational institutions that are typically tasked with “celebrating” national cultural achievements, theRijksmuseum in Amsterdam curated a series of high-profile exhibitions, leading to books, films,
and teaching resources for the national curriculum (Figure 7). Many of these efforts adopted amulti-vocal approach to explore diverse roles and experiences, covering the full Dutch colonial
period from the 17th to the 19th century. They develop a global perspective on events of thisperiod, including the role of both the WIC in the Atlantic slave trade, as well as the Dutch East
India Company (VOC) which was involved in colonial slavery in South Africa and Asia. Also
examined is how the system impacted back on economic and cultural life of the Netherlands.
The complex legacies of colonial slave trading received a renewed surge of international
attention in 2020, and within the Netherlands, the sustained Dutch involvement was also highlighted
in a burst of protests and frank public debates. These confrontations highlighted a particularly
uncomfortable dimension to the more popular national narratives that define Dutch identity interms of deep civic values of mutual tolerance and respect for diversity. Marked societal shifts
have resulted, with the Mayor of Amsterdam making a formal public apology in 2021 for the city’s
past role in slavery, stating that “The city officials and the ruling elite who, in their hunger for
profit and power, participated in the trade in enslaved people, in doing so entrenched a system of
oppression based on skin colour and race.” Utrecht followed with a formal apology in 2022 andthe major Dutch bank ABN-Amro has also made apologies for historic involvement in slavery. A
national apology has long been regarded as divisive and controversial, but was eventually issued inlate 2022 by the Netherlands prime minister Mark Rutte. While welcomed as long overdue in somequarters, the statement was heavily criticized due to the lack of consultation with the descendentcommunities who now form significant ethnic minorities within the Netherlands.

From Revisionist Histories to Popular Folk Traditions
Have debates about the “difficult histories” of Dutch slave-trading and colonial exploitation
within academic and political circles, or been restricted to the larger multi-cultural cities? Perhaps
unique to the Netherlands is the fact that the growing awareness of slavery and other forms ofcolonial injustice now collide with a deeply-traditional Dutch children’s festival – within thisfestival “Black Pete” (Zwarte Piet) is the central character (Figure 8). Opinions remain sharply
deeply divided but show some signs of reconciliation.
So who is Black Pete? The figure probably emerged in the mid 19th C and is central to an
essentially “indigenous” Dutch tradition. He is the playful assistant of Sinterklaas (or Sint-Nicolaas),a senior white-skinned bishop, who together bring boat loads of gifts and sweets to well-behaved
32Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

children at the start of December. After arrival of their ship, they parade through the streets, thewhite bishop in lavish robes and tall hat riding on a horse, and the playful Black Pete (often severalof them) walking alongside giving out gifts to the crowds. Black Pete is traditionally dressed as aservant, with tight black curly hair, a black face, thick lips and gold earrings (Figure 8). The same
themes and characters were depicted in many generations of children’s books. It has also been
traditional to decorate shop windows with a Black Pete display at the start of the festive season.
Most families, schools, social clubs, companies, and educational institutions also held festivals
in which Black Pete was central. Traditionally, this meant that as white-skinned Dutch people– Figure
childrenandadults– playedout theseroles,
as theydone for many generations,
8: Innocent
characterin a traditional
Dutch children’s
festivalfestive
or deeply racist
caricature?
Examplehaveof aset from Playmobil’s “Sinterklaas-Zwarte Piet” toy series, with new themes issued each year from 2010 to 2013.
they
donnedwigs,
stickandas“blackface”
toYearbecomethe Black Pete character (asThe Playmobil
steamboat
withearrings,
Sinterklaas and red
Zwartelip
Piet wasnominated“Netherlands
Toy of the
2011”
by Stichting SpeelGoed Nederland. Production briefly ceased with the intensification of the “Zwarte Piete Debate”,
recentlyasresumed
2014,in supermarkets
typically“blackkits bythe checkout every year).
but was briefly
2018 due to very high publicdemand. sold
Production
has now face”
been terminatedbut theolder toy sets have become popular “collectors’ items”.

Figure 8. Innocent character in a traditional Dutch children’s festival or deeply racist caricature?
Example of a set from Playmobil’s “Sinterklaas-Zwarte Piet” toy series, with new themes issued
each year from 2010 to 2013. The Playmobil steamboat with Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet was
nominated as “Netherlands Toy of the Year 2011” by Stichting SpeelGoed Nederland. Production
briefly ceased with the intensification of the “Black Pete Debate”, but was briefly resumed in 2018
due to very high public demand. Production has now been terminated but the older toy sets havebecome popular “collectors’ items”.
3333

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

The fundamental controversy in what has become known as the “Black Pete Debate” is theprecise cultural and historical significance of this character – does he reference an embedded
societal racism, a lingering colonial mentality associated with slave-trading and exploitation, oris he an innocent figure in an essentially naïve and harmless festival for children? In other words,
is the character simply being “misunderstood” (or mis-represented) by outsiders and international
activists who do not understand and appreciate the Netherlands’ deep history of religious andcultural tolerance? Many Dutch families regard this as an unfounded attack by outsiders on their“indigenous” family and community traditions.
Within the Netherlands’ increasingly multicultural society, however, the parades and displaysof Black Pete are regarded as symptomatic of a deeper and more institutionalized racism thatpervades all sectors of society. For these reasons, the debate has polarized opinion across thecountry, with larger cosmopolitan cities and the main urban areas leading the way in replacing“Black-Face” Pete with an updated and more neutral “Sooty-face” Pete whose smeared and grimyface is a result of him climbing down chimneys to deliver presents. In contrast, traditionalists –many of whom predominantly live in smaller towns and rural areas – have stubbornly maintained
the original form of the character as an expression of their right to uphold authentic Dutch traditions
and practices without outside interference. As a result, divergent perspectives impact families, split
generations, and unsettle communities. Many parents have talked about the dread and fatigue of
having to navigate changing expectations about what is essentially an annual “children’s festival;”
the debate resurfaces in the media as each new winter season approaches.
Significantly, the mayors of all the major Dutch cities have now moved to ban “Black-Face”
Pete in the annual civic processions. There are now clear signs that a wider transition to “Sooty Pete”
is already well underway across Dutch society. Throughout this period, the government has refused
to take sides and issue formal statements or positions. Yet are these developments just cosmetic andsuperficial updates to a popular festival character? Many civic leaders assert that the convenientswitch to “Sooty Pete” barely masks deeper societal prejudices and argue that an institutionalized
racism that still lingers within the Netherlands. The “Childcare Benefits Scandal” of 2021 (Figure9) devastated the lives of 26,999 parents and shocked the entire Dutch nation, bringing these issues
again into central focus. Accusations of systematic racial profiling at the expense of deeper humanrights eventually resulted in resignation of the entire Dutch cabinet (Amnesty International 2021:
5-6).

34

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023
Figure 9: Cover of Amnesty International’s independent investigation into the 2021 Dutch Child Benefit Scandal,
which reached damming conclusions about institutionalized racism within national ministries (Source: Amnesty
International).

Figure 9. Cover of Amnesty International’s independent investigation into the 2021 Dutch Child
Benefit Scandal, which reached damming conclusions about institutionalized racism within national
34
ministries (Source: Amnesty International).

Conclusions: National Memory Debates, Identity and Cultural Diversity
This paper has explored - on a very general level – some of the origins and contemporary
legacies of “difficult histories” that now play out at national, European, and indeed, global scales. The
Netherlands case-study explores how popular national narratives are repeatedly being challenged
35

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 2023

by new and emerging perspectives on history, identity, and diversity. These confrontations andadjustments have been stimulated by both increasing international awareness as well as new
forms of local cultural encounter generated by migration and globalization. While the evolving
Dutch “memory debate” has its own particular trajectories and nuances, it is clearly nourishedand protected by a broader societal commitment to objective enquiry, fact-based analysis, andenergetic efforts at wider public engagement and debate; importantly, these initiatives involve local
communities, civic leaders, academic researchers, the national media, plus all the major culturaland political institutions.
These progressive trends are further protected by commitments to basic academic freedoms,
and via deeper financial and political support for original research into controversial historicalthemes. Notably, the focus of public debate is also encouraged and enriched by a bold and dynamic
museums sector, not afraid to reach out and explore themes that unsettle more “comfortable” andfamiliar national-historical narratives. Likewise, public exhibitions are combined with in-depth
research, wider societal and community-based engagement, supported by targeted educational
activities aimed at informing future generations. In turn - and in an increasingly globalized andmulti-cultural world – these elements do appear to signal a broader societal capacity to tackle
uncomfortable historical questions in the pursuit of deeper understanding and improved mutual
accommodation and understanding. Of course, problems remain, but on balance, the Netherlands
continues to exhibit a frank and open commitment to “coming to terms with the past” in order tocreate more tolerant and equitable futures, no matter how complex, troubled, and uncomfortable
the intervening memory debates have often become.
To conclude these reflections, there are many insights here that could help guide and inform
how other nations choose to resolve their own “difficult histories.” For example, within northern
Europe, complex legacies are tied to similar colonial histories in the Americas (and beyond), but insome cases, they also involve controversial state interactions with Sami Indigenous communities
of northern Scandinavia, and with the Inuit populations of Greenland. Likewise, in Northeast
Asia, Japan is also coming to terms with its complex colonial entanglements with Ainu Indigenous
minorities in Hokkaido.

NOTES
Note 1. This article forms an abridged version of a key note lecture that was delivered in January2022 at the opening ceremony of Hokkaido University’s new Global Station for Indigenous Studies
and Cultural Diversity (GSI GSI GI-CoRE). The invitation encouraged a presentation that offeredcritical reflections on European concepts of indigenous identity and cultural diversity. The original
title was “Reflecting on i(I)ndigeneity in the Age of the Anthropocene: A European Perspective”.
Note 2. These insights and reflections based on two periods of residence in the Netherlands as a
British Citizen: (i) circa 6 months at the University of Amsterdam as an ERASMUS exchange
student (1990); (ii) 8.5 years of formal residence as an employee of Groningen University (201336

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 6–37, 20232021). Fluency in Dutch, combined with numerous friendships and other social and professional
interactions, supported a more “internal” understanding of how the contemporary Netherlands is
engaging with particular events and historical legacies. In the end, however, all the interpretations
offered here are subjective and personal.
Note 3. Given that the paper originated as a public lecture the academic citation has been kept toa minimum. This also reflects the fact that all the main historical events covered here are alreadypublic knowledge across Europe. Moreover, many of the more specific insights and interpretations
are personal interpretations (see Note 2, above). Finally, as stated in the introduction, the paper
primarily aims to engage with international readers living and working outside Europe, and isintended to stimulate broader personal reflection into how the themes of historical memory, identity
and contemporary cultural diversity intersect in particular ways in other world regions.

References
Amnesty International. (2021). Xenophobic Machines: Discrimination Through Unregulated
Use of Algorithms in the Dutch Childcare Benefits Scandal. Retrieved from https://www.
amnesty.org/en/documents/eur35/4686/2021/en/
Carmiggelt, A. H. (2019). ‘Geheimzinnigheid is zijn fort’: Assien Bohmers (archeoloog),
1912-1988. [Secrecy is his fortress: Assien Bohmers (archaeologist), 1912-1988].
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.98705556
Doolan, P. M. M. (2021). Collective Memory and the Dutch East Indies: Unremembering
Decolonization (Vol. 13, Heritage and Memory Studies). Amsterdam University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9789048553075
Knippenberg, H. (2022). Assimilating Jews in Dutch nation-building: The missing ‘pillar’.
Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 93(2), 191-207. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1467-9663.00194
Shama, S. (1995). Landscape and Memory (p. 650). HarperCollins.
University of Groningen. (2021, October 8). History of the University Museum: 1900-1950: The
Dark Years. Retrieved from https://www.rug.nl/museum/history/articles/1900-1950#darkyears37

3. Indigenous Studies and Anthropology: Future Pathways and Partnerships
Joe E. WATKINS, Designated Campus Colleague, School of Anthropology, University of Arizona

Indigenous Studies andAnthropology:
Future Pathways and Partnerships
Joe E. WATKINS

1

1 Designated Campus Colleague, School of Anthropology, University of Arizona.
jwatkins@theaceconsultants.com

Abstract
Anthropology, with its holistic approach to the study of human cultures, past andpresent, has a great deal to offer to contemporary societies. Its ability to provide insights
about humans over the course of millions of years continues to serve those interested in theways that humans might continue to evolve. Indigenous Studies is more generally thought tobe focused on specific groups of people who have been impacted by colonization and theirindividual cultural developments. Indigenous Studies uses a more internal perspective thatrecognizes that Indigenous peoples have disparate literatures, knowledge systems, politicalstructures, languages, and world views, but that they share commonalities that link them withother Indigenous peoples of the world. It also acknowledges that colonialism in its many forms
has impacted sovereignty, human rights, landholdings, religious freedom, health, welfare, andcultural integrity. This paper offers a general discussion of anthropological and Indigenous
Studies perspectives, presents the benefits and problems of working with communities,
and then offers suggestions on how anthropology can become more relevant to Indigenous
communities through a hybridization of anthropological and Indigenous Studies’ perspectives.
Keywords: Anthropology; Colonialism; Community-Based Participatory Research;
Indigenous Studies; Collaborative archaeology; Participatory Action Research

Introduction
While practitioners of Anthropology and Indigenous Studies might believe that the approaches
to research exercised by each discipline are better remaining separate and distinct from each other,
I believe that each approach to studying contemporary peoples has much to offer the other. This
paper begins with some basic background on Anthropological and Indigenous Studies perspectives,
and then delves into a discussion of some of the benefits of working with communities as well as

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 38–52, 2023
https://doi.org/10.57519/iscd.00002
Published by Global Station for Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity
https://gi-core.oia.hokudai.ac.jp/gsi/publication.html

38

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 38–52, 2023

some of the problems that occur in trying to do so. The paper concludes with suggestions on waysthat Anthropology can become more relevant to Indigenous communities through a hybridizationof Anthropological and Indigenous Studies’ perspectives.
The discipline of Anthropology has consistently focused on studying human behavior, and the
product of that behavior, human culture. It attempts to draw generalities from studies of individual
human cultures, both over time and over geography. Cultural anthropology attempts to derive
general ideas about human groups through comparison with specific things in human cultures;
biological anthropology works to develop hypotheses about human development over time;
linguistic anthropology studies human languages and language use over time; and archaeology
attempts to provide information about human cultural development through comparisons with
cultures of the past. In this way, anthropology can be seen as a mechanism by which we are better
able to understand human behavior in its many forms and to provide a broader understanding of theways that humans have evolved over time.
Anthropology might use other sciences as part of specific research foci, but it is generally
considered a single discipline. Indigenous Studies, on the other hand, is an interdisciplinary fieldof study that researches various groups of people who are generally seen to have been colonizedby other cultures. Paul Sillitoe (2015: 8) describes Indigenous Studies as “research conducted by
and for Indigenous people rather than being about them,” which aims to benefit the community andthe researcher.
It is important to recognize that the term “Indigenous” has many interpretations and meanings.
As a base point from which to start, the definition offered by the United Nations’ International
Labor Organization in Part I, Article 1, of its Convention 169 (ILO 1989) is appropriate:(a) tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural, and economic conditions
distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status isregulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or
regulations; and(b) peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of theirdescent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region towhich the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonization or the establishment ofpresent state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of
their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.

Despite this international approach to defining “Indigenous,” the recognition and applicationof the definition to specific groups of people often rests with the formality of the relationshipbetween the nation-state and the group under consideration. In the United States, for example,
there are 574 American Indian tribes recognized as eligible for government-provided programs.
39

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 38–52, 2023

These tribes have a formal government-to-government relationship with the federal government.
But there are also groups of people who claim American Indian ancestry but who are not membersof one of these 574 groups, and thus are not eligible for government-provided programs. In Japan,
where the Ainu have been recognized as Japan’s indigenous population, some authors have reported
that there are Ainu-identified persons (individuals who claim Ainu ancestry) who are precluded
from membership in the Ainu Association of Hokkaido and from receiving government-issued
subsidies because they choose not to live on the Island of Hokkaido (Lewallen 2008, Nakamura
2015, Watson 2010).
There are numerous Indigenous studies programs – American Indian/Native American
Studies1, First Nations Studies, Aboriginal Studies, Māori Studies, and even Ainu Studies2 – andeach has different goals and paradigms under which they operate. Even though such programs
tend to focus on specific groups, many also offer broad comparisons concerning global issues thatface Indigenous groups. In a broad sense, the primary focus of Indigenous Studies programs is on
Indigenous ways of knowing and thinking as avenues to better understanding Indigenous culture,
history, sovereignty, government, education, philosophy, and the environment, to name but a few.
Using a contemporary example, the Centre for Indigenous Studies of the University of Toronto
describes its Indigenous Studies program as a way of engendering “a rigorous and respectfulunderstanding of Indigenous peoples’ languages, knowledges, cultures, histories, politics, arts,
intellectual traditions, and research methodologies” (Centre for Indigenous Studies n.d.). A
key feature of their program relies upon “respect and promotion of Indigenous knowledges, asevidenced by the commitment to Indigenous language instruction and courses devoted to the topic
of Indigenous knowledge itself” (Centre for Indigenous Studies n.d.).
At first glance, the differences between the approaches of Anthropology and Indigenous
Studies programs are apparent. Anthropology, as an outgrowth of Western science, generally sets
the outsider-as-observer as the expert, recording aspects of cultures that the cultural practitioners
may not recognize. The researcher generally tries to gather materials that can usefully be objectively
compared to human cultures globally and often attempts to maintain an objective perspective sothat the resultant data are somewhat free from researcher bias (an etic perspective). Nonetheless,
Anthropology has often been linked to colonialism and the colonial enterprise, reflecting its earlier
manifestations, which it has not entirely shaken off despite considerable efforts. Indigenous
Studies, on the other hand, attempts to foreground insiders’ perspectives in the research (an emic
perspective), and works from the idea that “objectivity” is neither possible nor preferable. The
variety of Indigenous Studies programs generally aim to “decolonize” their disciplines as a meansof lessening the impact of previous research and resultant policies on contemporary populations.
While both groups of researchers aim to provide specific information about a specific group of people

1 In this paper, I use “American Indian” and “Native American” interchangeably, although some other authors
recognize the politics of each term.
2 Hudson, Lewallen & Watson 2014 volume Beyond Ainu Studies draws attention to an alternative meaning of theterm as it has been applied to the study of the Ainu as scientific specimens.

40

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 38–52, 2023

that can be beneficial to contemporary populations, Anthropology tries to maintain “objectivity;”
although the idea of researcher subjectivity has become a vibrant theme in Anthropology (i.e., thepost-processual approach).

Action Anthropology
Regardless of whether Indigenous Studies are seen as expressing advocacy, there are some
practitioners of Anthropology who approach their work in ways that can be seen as advocacy. Theirresearch derives from the community and is intended to relate to specific situations, rather thantrying to craft a “fix” based only on the researcher’s perspective. Two common forms of researchthat fit this perspective are Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) and Participatory
Action Research (PAR).

Community-based Participatory ResearchCommunity-based Participatory Research (CBPR) is a research program that involves
communities directly in all aspects of research that has impact on them. It allows the community
to set the research agenda, determine the specific situations that the community wants help with,and initiate any programs that might result from the research. It has been more commonly used inpublic health initiatives, but increasingly anthropologists are using it as a way of creating outcomesthat directly benefit the communities where the anthropologists work. For example, archaeologists
Sara Gonzalez and Ian Kretzler of the University of Washington partnered with Briece Edwards of
the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon to conduct an archaeological field
school that served to increase tribal capacity to identify, record, and protect tribal heritage on thereservation (Gonzalez et al 2018).
There is a large and growing body of papers written describing CBPR and CBPR projects.
Green and Mercer (2001) provide Venn diagrams (Figure 1) to illustrate the levels of participationand collaboration of different stakeholders played out in participatory research (PR). This diagram
is a good general way to clarify distinctions between basic and applied research (the area within theoval on the left) and action research (the central circle). The overlap between the circle on the rightand the other two necessarily includes those involved in the action situation (usually practitioners
and service providers) as subjects of, rather than as participants, in the research. While Greenand Mercer’s figure relates primarily to health-related research, it was one of the first to diagram
different types of research and their impacts on various publics as stakeholders.

41

in the action situation (usually practitioners and service providers) as subjects of, rather thanas participants, in the research. While Green and Mercer’s figure relates primarily to healthrelated research,
it was one of the first to diagram different types of research and their impacts
Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 38–52, 2023
on various publics as stakeholders.

Figure 1. Levels of participation and collaboration of different groups in participatory research
FigureGreen
1: Levelsof participationand collaborationof different groups in participatory research(PR). Fromand Mercer
2001: Figure
1, 1927.
(PR). From Green and Mercer 2001: Figure 1, 1927.
In 2003, the United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality within the US
Department ofInHealthandUnited
HumanStates
Servicesoffereda good summary
theQuality
relatively
newthe(atUS
2003, theAgencyfor Healthcare
Researchofandwithinthat time)community-based
participatory
research.
The reportwaysthat CBPR
Department
of Health andHuman Services
offereda gooddescribedsummary theof therelatively
new (atpartnerships with community-based organizations can lead to better health outcomes. The
document, while dated, still provides good background on the processes, goals, and methods of
5
conducting this sort of research.
More recently, Holkup et al. (2004) discuss how CBPR is “an appealing model for researchwith vulnerable populations” as part of their work with Native American communities (2004: 162).
Their article is useful as it provides a definition of CBPR, discusses principles of the approach,offers a historic context of the use of CBPR, and discusses some of the challenges the researchers
faced when using the approach.
Despite the positive examples that have come out of CBPR, some researchers may find it
difficult to give up their power by allowing the community to set the agenda and the research questions
it would like to be researched. For example, Muhammad and his colleagues (2015) offer insights
into the role that unequal power relations and positionality (of the researcher and the community
members) plays in the partnering processes and the outcomes. They note how researchers are seen
by community members to have “power, privilege, and status” based on academic standing andresearch publications; thus, the authors suggest it is necessary for practitioners of communitybased research to recognize “how dimensions of power and privilege conferred by [the researcher’s
academic personae] … impact our capacity to co-create effective CBPR” (2015: 3) and for thepractitioners to take steps to try to lessen those power differentials at the beginnings of communitybased research endeavors.
Anthropology might have been slow to adopt the CBPR model, but it is now widely recognized
as a valid method of study. In 2015, the Society for Applied Anthropology published an issue of
its Practicing Anthropology journal devoted entirely to CBPR. Titled “Community – Academic
42

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 38–52, 2023

Partnerships and Ethnographic Field Training” (Vol. 37, No. 4), the issue offered insights anddiscussion of student and professional experiences during work that emerged from the 2013 seasonof the Health Equity Alliance of Tallahassee (HEAT) Ethnographic Field School communityacademic partnership in Tallahassee, Florida (Szurek and Gravlee 2015: 3). The various articles
offer positive examples and the authors’ insights into the process that can help researchers better
understand the positive outcomes that can accrue as a result of this approach to research.
But CBPR is not just for individual researchers. The Bureau of Applied Research in
Anthropology (BARA) is an academic research unit within the School of Anthropology at the
University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona. It uses CBPR as a foundation in its work with research
projects that involve or impact communities. The Bureau considers CBPR to be “a framework forlearning and reflection in action” (BARA n.d.). Key tenets of the program are to “foster collaboration
among community members and researchers (including students), engage all in reflective practiceand reciprocal learning, build the capacity of community groups to create change, balance research
and action, practice inter- and multi-disciplinary work, and situate community concerns in a larger
context” (BARA n.d.). As a research-driven organ within the University, the Bureau continues tofind newer ways to bring the community more fully into the research process.
Sonya Atalay (2007, 2010, 2012) has advocated for CBPR in archaeology. Her 2012 volume
Community-Based Archaeology: Research with, by and for Indigenous and Local Communities drew
its title from Nicholas and Andrews’ 1997 definition of “Indigenous Archaeology” as “archaeology
done with, for, and by Indigenous peoples” (Nicholas and Andrews 1997: 3, footnote 5). It provides
examples of Atalay’s work in projects that involved the communities and calls for archaeology torecognize that research must benefit the community as well as the discipline – otherwise, Atalay
believes, archaeology will continue to be paternalistic and colonialist without contributing to the
non-academic reader.

Participatory Action Research
Another sort of action archaeology is known as participatory action research (PAR). As
described by Hollowell and Nicholas, PAR is “a well-established emancipatory methodology that
promotes reciprocal and collaborative practices through participation of ‘the researched’ in thedesign, implementation, evaluation, and benefits of research” (2009, 147). They note the similarities
with community-oriented/collaborative archaeology projects: both PAR and collaborative projects
aim to increase partnership in the choice of research problems, bring in the partner to co-develop
research methodology, and target benefits to the community. However, the power base and benefitsof such partnerships still tend to be skewed towards the outside researcher who is often seen as
bringing money (and, therefore, “power”) into the research.
Thus, for PAR or CBPR projects to succeed, these potential power imbalances must be identified
and challenged. Hollowell and Nicholas (2009, 148) present some of the “critical questions” that
PAR typically addresses: Whose research is it? Who owns it? Whose intentions does it serve? Who
43

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 38–52, 2023

will benefit? Who designs the questions and frames the scope of research? Who will carry it out?
Who will write it up? How are results disseminated? These and other sorts of questions must be
asked at the beginning of any community-based project in order for the answers derived from theresearch to be beneficial to the community involved with the anthropologist.

Collaborative archaeology
There are other names given to a community-based approach to conducting research inaddition to CBPR. “Collaborative archaeology” has come into use to describe projects that are more
directly involved with community members. “Indigenous Archaeology” can be seen as one aspectof collaborative archaeology and has been discussed quite fully in the past, but it is important tonote that collaborative archaeology can be used with any community and not just Indigenous ones.
Jordan Kerber’s edited volume Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in
the Northeastern United States (2006) was one of the first to specifically mention “collaboration,”but there are other edited volumes that describe many such projects (Colwell-Chanthaphonh andFerguson 2008; Silliman 2008). Chip Colwell provided a more detailed discussion of collaborativearchaeology in his Annual Review of Anthropology article in 2016 (Colwell 2016: 113-127),
including a brief history of the various projects that have occurred which have sought to bring thecommunity into partnerships with researchers.
Colwell’s representation (Figure 2) of the continuum of colonial control on one end of thespectrum and community control on the other (Colwell 2016) as it played out in the past is a good
example of the range that communities and researchers can (or can choose not to) share powerand control over archaeological projects. However, it is important to define “collaboration.” It is
most often presented as some form of the archaeologist “working together” with the community(of whatever sort), but that seems rather unsatisfactory; true collaboration should involve full andequal power sharing, decision making, benefits flow, and so forth – at least as much as the researchand community allow.

44

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 38–52, 2023

Figure 2. Five historical modes of interaction with tribes in the United States (Colwell, 2016:

Figure 2. Five historical modes of interaction with tribes in the United States (Colwell, 2016:
Figure1,
1,117).
117).
FigureIn thisfigure,the arrowalong
the bottom
indicates
the levelof powerand control
In thisfigure,the arrowalong
the bottom
indicates
the levelof powerand control
that is thatsharedisshared(ornot)
betweenarchaeologists
andtribes.
The
rows
indicatesix“elements”
ofthe(or not) between archaeologists and tribes. The rows indicate six “elements” of the relationships:
relationships:
Who sets
theresearch?
goals of theresearch?
How is the information
shared?
How
are theWhosets the goalsof theHow
is the information
shared? How
are thedescendants
involved?
What“voice” dothe descendants
To what levelis theTo
tribe
involvedin thedescendants
involved?
What“voice” do have?
the descendants
have?
what
level isthe research
tribe
agenda?
needs areagenda?
prioritized?
At thesame
the fiveAt
topicsacrossthe thetop five
offertopics
specific
involvedWhosein the research
Whose
needs
aretime,prioritized?
the sametime,outcomes of the involvement of the communities. Because the complexity of the relationships
across the top offer specific outcomes of the involvement of the communities. Because thevaries across the range of topics and elements, it is important that individual researchers realize thatcomplexity of the relationships varies across the range of topics and elements, it is importantthe variety of ways that researchers and tribes (or other Indigenous communities) work together
that individual
researchers
realize thatthe variety
waysandthatcontrol
researchersandmutuallytribes (orbeneficial
otherdepends
on the waysthat researchers
decideto shareof
power
to create
Indigenous
communities) work together depends on the ways that researchers decide to shareresearch
programs.
power and control to create mutually beneficial research programs.

In Japan, Hirofumi Kato has worked to bring the community more into the discussions about
In Japan, Hirofumi Kato has worked to bring the community more into the discussions
archaeology.
His practice of “Indigenous archaeology” in Japan (Kato 2009, 2014, 2017) indicatespractice ofof“Indigenous
in Japan(Kato 2009,2014, 2017)
aaboutdrive archaeology.
to present theHis
perspectives
the Ainu ofarchaeology”
Hokkaido in thearchaeologicalenterprise.
Kato’sindicates
a
drive
to
present
theperspectives
of
the
Ainu
of
Hokkaido
inthearchaeologicalapproach to working with Ainu individuals as part of the research process on the archaeology of
Hokkaido
aspectsof CBPRthat it attempts
to individuals
find ways ofasintegrating
community
voice
enterprise.has
Kato’sapproach
to inworkingwith Ainu
part of thethe
research
process
intoarchaeologicalin suchway that
the archaeologist’s
voice
is nottheofonlyone.
on thearchaeologyresearchof Hokkaido
hasaaspectsof CBPRin that attempt
to findways
integrating
the community voice into archaeological research in such a way that the archaeologist’s voice
is not the only one.

Defining “community”
If community involvement in anthropological projects provides such a wide range of benefits,
9
why don’t more anthropologists involve the community
more fully? Beyond the idea that many45

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 38–52, 2023

anthropologists are hesitant to give up some of their power or their control over the projects, one
major question is “What is ‘community’?” MacQueen et al., (2001) note how “the lack of an
accepted definition of community can result in different collaborators forming contradictory or
incompatible assumptions” (2001: 1929).
MacQueen and her colleagues asked 118 participants in a research study about how thevarious participants defined “community.” The resarchers identified five major core elements in
the responses: locus (a sense of place); sharing (common interests and perspectives); joint action(a sense of cohesion and identity); social ties (the foundation for community); and diversity (social
complexity within communities) (MacQueen et al. 2001: 1931-1932). They see these five coreelements as imperative in identifying “community” in research. However, putting this into practiceoften requires that the resaercher spends time in the “community” in order to better understand theoptions and situations that might be inherent in the research area.
This process of defining “community” can lead to unintended consequences that might
prevent or negate collaborative research. For example, a researcher may inadvertently interact
with or privilege one portion of a community or fail to consider or consult with other groups. In
this way, the resarcher might be seen as “taking sides” by choosing one group’s perspectives orrecommendations over another.
There are other problems that might occur with collaborative or community-based archaeology.
Quite often, community members feel that the researcher is the expert and automatically defer tohis or her perspectives rather than offering their own. Another situation arises when a community
member (perhaps inadvertently) offers previously collected ethnographic or other research results
as their own perspectives, indirectly defering to other researchers’ expertise. This process, known
as “read back,” can unknowingly offer previous research results to outside researchers as that of
the community. Additionally, a situation may arise when the knowledge of the community is takenwith little benefit to the community, or when the community loses control of particular aspects ofknowledge that become someone else’s “intellectual property.”

Positive and Negative Aspects of Collaborative Researchin Anthropology
As a means of furthering the discussion about community-focused research undertaken byanthropologists and archaeologists, I briefly discuss some of the positive and negative aspects ofcommunity-oriented research. The following discussion is in no way meant to be an encyclopedic
presentation of all aspects of community-oriented research but is merely meant to provide examples
to illustrate some of the process.

46

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 38–52, 2023

Positive Aspects of Collaborative Research in
Anthropology
What are some of the benefits of CBPR and/or collaborative archaeology? First (and perhaps
foremost), collaborative archaeology allows archaeologists to tell a fuller story about the past in amore accurate and more meaningful way. It allows us to gather additional perspectives that derivefrom long-term interactions with environments with which researchers might not be familiar. Of
course, researchers must not run the risk of “essentialism” (see McGhee 2008, 20103), which
presumes that Indigenous perspectives are correct only because they come from an Indigenous
person.
Collaborative projects serve the community by providing opportunities for community
building, building broader public “buy-in” of research findings, and increasing connections of
Indigenous youth to their heritage. They provide possibilities of obtaining and presenting moredetailed information on communities that is often not readily available (or presented) in the histories
of dominant cultures. They can provide information to help policy makers better understand socialand social justice issues within communities, often leading to the opportunity for policy-making that
better serves the needs of the communities and which might lead to alleviation of social problems.
Ultimately, however, successful collaboration with communities opens the door for futureendeavors and increases our knowledge of our partners’ values, goals, and worldviews. It also
provides the communities with access to anthropology’s and archaeology’s tool kits and researchcapabilities. It gives insights into other epistemological systems that exist outside of Westernscience and helps us better understand the variety of ways that humans perceive and interact withthe world. The various community-based projects facilitated by the seven-year Intellectual Property
Issues in Cultural Heritage (IPinCH) project (https://www.sfu.ca/ipinch/) serve as great examplesof things that may be accomplished through such a collaborative framework.

Negative Aspects of Collaborative Research in
Anthropology
Other aspects that might serve to negate collaborative projects include the concept that suchresearch is somehow “unscientific” since it is by definition not “objective research.” George
Nicholas wrote an essay for The Conversation that served to “explore the double-standard thatexists concerning the acceptance of Traditional Knowledge by practitioners of Western science”(Nicholas 2018). Surprisingly (or not), the article created a stir among some readers, and Nicholas
was criticized for offering his “anti-science” views (Nicholas 2019). Even when research iscomplementary to current “objective” research, practitioners of collaborative archaeological

3 See Colwell-Chanthaphonh et al. 2010 for a response to McGhee.

47

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 38–52, 2023

projects are often viewed with question and concern.
Researchers who try to integrate the community in research projects also report on theinherent problems within determining who speaks for the people under concern. In the UnitedStates, heritage preservation laws require federal agencies to interact with elected officials and,through them, to the most appropriate individuals relevant to the task at hand. However, “traditional
leaders” may or may not be included in the conversation, depending on whether the appropriate
officer determines the need (or desire) to include those voices in the conversation. In addition, there
are some occasions where various “factions” of a community oppose other factions, with eachgroup indicating the desire to be the “only” voice in the matter.
More aspects include the idea that such research is advocacy for a specific group andsomehow tainting the “purity” of academic research, and that collaborative research is driven bypolitics or “New Age” postmodernist thought. While some archaeologists still believe that research
is somehow apolitical, others argues that research has always been political (c.f., Fowler 1987;
McGuire 1992; Trigger 1980, 1986).
Nicholas et al. (2011: 25-26) identify some of the challenges of developing and implementing
collaborative projects. They note the difficulties involved when academic resarchers, often used todeveloping their research designs in a vacuum, need to rely on community input; they note as wellthat community priorities might not mesh with the resarcher’s desires, and that such an issue might
require the researcher to shift approaches entirely.
There are other negative aspects that other authors have offered, but these will suffice toprovide adequate caution for those who want to increase the involvement of community in research
associated with collaborative archaeology. Be forewarned: “Collaboration is not for everyone, andin some cases it may not be the best or most appropriate approach” (Nicholas et al. 2011: 26).

Benefits of integrating Indigenous Studies Perspectives
into Anthropology
Bringing more Indigenous Studies methods and perspectives into Anthropology provides
the discipline the opportunity to become more active and relevant in issues of importance tocontemporary groups. As noted, in the past Anthropology has endeavored to maintain an objective
stance, but such a stance more often serves to create the perspectives by the groups we study that they
are under a microscope and are nothing more than study objects. By altering our perspective (andresultant methodologies) we can lessen the divide between ourselves as researchers and ourselves
as humans. We remove the artificial boundaries that “objective, scientific research” places between
researcher and researched. By bringing in more Indigenous voices, we can challenge the idea of
science as “homogenous” (Wylie 1997).
We also gain the possibilities of providing more relevant benefits to communities. When we48

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 38–52, 2023

bring the community into the picture, we step away from the view that we are doing “science forscience’s sake” and more toward creating products that may serve purposes other than just the
production of knowledge. Research can help to fill out histories that are currently under-represented
in the national history and school curricula and offer hope to the children of those under-represented
families. Creating and publicizing such products can serve to increase self-esteem and strengthen
identity among vulnerable community members as well as provide information that can influence
governmental policies toward those populations.
Creating these partnerships with communities can go a long way toward moving anthropology
out of its colonial history and toward a more inclusive and diverse discipline. It is not necessarily
an easy task, and sometimes the community may not want to be involved with anthropologists
or archaeologists. Regardless of whether we can instill trust in the communities where (and withwhich) we work, I believe this is something we owe to our discipline and that is necessary foranthropology (and archaeology) to become more relevant to global issues.

References
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2003). The Role of Community-Based
Participatory Research: Creating Partnerships, Improving Health. AHRQ Publication No.
03-0037. US Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://archive.
ahrq.gov/research/cbprrole.htm
Atalay, S.L. (2006). Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice. American Indian
Quarterly 30(3), 280-310.
Atalay, S.L. (2007). Global Application of Indigenous Archaeology: Community Based
Participatory Research in Turkey. Archaeologies 3(3), 249-270.
Atalay, S.L. (2012). Community-Based Archaeology: Research with, by and for Indigenous andLocal Communities. University of California.
Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology. (n.d.) Community-based Participatory Research.
University of Arizona. Retrieved from https://bara.arizona.edu/cbpr. Accessed on 3
January 2022.
Centre for Indigenous Studies. (n.d.) What is Indigenous Studies? University of Toronto.
Retrieved from https://indigenousstudies.utoronto.ca/about/what-is-indigenous-studies/.
Accessed on 5 January 2022.
Colwell, C. (2016). Collaborative Archaeologies and Descendant Communities. Annual Review
of Anthropology 45, 113-127. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102215-095937
Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C. & Ferguson, T.J. (2008). Collaboration in Archaeological Practice:Engaging Descendant Communities. AltaMira.
49

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 38–52, 2023

Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C., Ferguson, T.J., Lippert, D. McGuire, R., Nicholas, G., Watkins, J., &Zimmerman, L. (2010). The Premise and Promise of Indigenous Archaeology. Comment
on R. McGhee’s ‘Aboriginalism and the Problems of Indigenous Archaeology.’ American
Antiquity 75(2), 228-238. https://doi.org/10.7183/0002-7316.75.2.228.
Fowler, D.D. (1987). Uses of the Past: Archaeology in the Service of the State. American
Antiquity 52(2), 229 248.
Gonzalez, S.L., Kretzler, I. & Edwards, B. (2018). Imagining Indigenous and Archaeological
Futures: Building Capacity with the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde. Archaeologies
14, 85–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-018-9335-0
Green, L. W. & Mercer, S. L. (2001). Can Public Health Researchers and Agencies Reconcile thePush from Funding Bodies and the Pull from Communities? American Journal of Public
Health 91(12), 1926-1929. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.91.12.1926
Holkup, P. A., Tripp-Reimer, T., Salois, E. M., & Weinert, C. (2004). Communitybased participatory research: an approach to intervention research with a Native
American community. Advances in nursing science, 27(3), 162–175. https://doi.
org/10.1097/00012272-200407000-00002
Hollowell, J. & Nicholas, G.P. (2009). Using Ethnographic Methods to Articulate CommunityBased Conceptions of Cultural Heritage Management. Public ArchaeologicalEthnographies 8(2-3), 141-160. https://doi.org/10.1179/175355309X457196
International Labour Organization. (n.d.) C-169, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention,
1989 (No. 169). United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=
NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C169
Kato, H. (2009). Whose archaeology?: Decolonizing Archaeological Perspective in Hokkaido
Island. Journal of the Graduate School of Letters 4: 47-55. http://hdl.handle.
net/2115/37065
Kato, H. (2014). Indigenous Heritage and Community−based Archaeology. In Okada, M & Kato,
H. (Eds.) Indigenous Heritage and Tourism: Theories and Practices on Utilizing the Ainu
Heritage, 17-32. http://hdl.handle.net/2115/56301
Kato, H. (2017). The Ainu and Japanese Archaeology: A change of perspective. Japanese Journalof Archaeology 4, 185–190.
Kerber, J.E. (2006). Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the
Northeastern United States. University of Nebraska.
Lewallen, A.E. (2008). Indigenous at last! Ainu Grassroots Organizing and the Indigenous
People’s Summit in Ainu Mosir. Asian-Pacific Journal, Japan Focus 6(11). Retrieved
from https://apjjf.org/-ann-elise-lewallen/2971/article.pdf.

50

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 38–52, 2023

MacQueen, K.M., McLellan, E, Metzger, D.S., Kegeles, S., Strauss, R.P., Scotti, R., Blanchard,L., & Trotter, II, R.T. (2001). What Is Community? An Evidence-Based Definition for
Participatory Public Health. American Journal of Public Health 91, 1929-1938. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.91.12.1929
McGhee, R.J. (2008). Aboriginalism and the Problems of Indigenous Archaeology. American
Antiquity 73(4), 579–597.
McGhee, R.J. (2010). Of Strawmen, Herrings, and Frustrated Expectations. American Antiquity
75(2), 239-243.
McGuire, R.L. (1992). Archaeology and the First Americans. American Anthropologist 94(4),816–836.
Muhammad, M., Wallerstein, N., Sussman, A. L., Avila, M., Belone, L., & Duran, B. (2015).
Reflections on Researcher Identity and Power: The Impact of Positionality on Community
Based Participatory Research (CBPR) Processes and Outcomes. Critical Sociology, 41(78), 1045-1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920513516025
Nakamura, N. (2015). Being Indigenous in a non-Indigenous environment: identity politics of theDogai Ainu and new Indigenous policies of Japan. Environment and Planning A 47(3),660–675. https://doi.org/10.1068/a130003p
Nicholas, G. P. (2018, February 14). It’s taken thousands of years, but Western science isfinally catching up to Traditional Knowledge. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/its-taken-thousands-of-years-but-western-science-is-finally-catchingup-to-traditional-knowledge-90291
Nicholas, G. P. (2019, February 28). An uneasy alliance: Indigenous Traditional Knowledge
enriches science. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/anuneasy-alliance-indigenous-traditional-knowledge-enriches-science-109212
Nicholas, G.P. & Andrews, T.D. (1997). Indigenous Archaeology in the Postmodem World. In
Nicholas, G.P. & Andrews, T.D. (Eds.) At a Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in
Canada, 1-18. Archaeology Press.
Nicholas, G.P., Roberts, A, Schaepe, D.M., Watkins, J.E., Leader-Elliot, L., & Rowley, S.
(2011). A Consideration of Theory, Principles and Practice in Collaborative Archaeology.
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 26(2), 11-30.
Silliman, S.W. (Ed.). (2008). Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge: Teaching and Learning in
Indigenous Archaeology (Vol. 2). University of Arizona Press.
Sillitoe, P. (2015). The dialogue between Indigenous Studies and Engaged Anthropology: SomeFirst Impressions. In P. Sillito (Ed.) Indigenous Studies and Engaged Anthropology: The
Collaborative Moment (1-29). Routledge.

51

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 38–52, 2023

Szurek, S.M., Gravlee, C.C. (2015). Introduction to the Special Issue. Practicing Anthropology
37 (4), 2–3. https://doi.org/10.17730/0888-4552-37.4.2
Trigger, B.G. (1980). Archaeology and the Image of the American Indian. American Antiquity
45(4), 662–676.
Trigger, B.G. (1986). Prehistoric Archaeology and American Society: An Historical Perspective.
In D.J. Meltzer, D.D. Fowler & J.A. Sabloff (Eds.) American Archaeology Past andFuture (187–215). Smithsonian Institution.
Watson, M.K. (2010). Diasporic Indigeneity: place and the articulation of Ainu identity in Tokyo,
Japan. Environment and Planning A 42(2), 268-284. https://doi.org/10.1068/a41112
Hudson, M.J., Lewallen, A.E, & Watson, M.K., (Eds.). (2014). Beyond Ainu Studies: Changing
Academic and Public Perspectives. University of Hawai’i.
Wylie, A. (1997). Good Science, Bad Science, or Science as Usual?: Feminist Critiques of
Science. In. Hager, L.D. (Ed.) Women in Human Evolution (29-55). Routledge.

52

4. Report on the Seminar of the Indigeneity Research Unit, GSI- Hirofumi KATO, Director, Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido University- Joe E. WATKINS, Designated Campus Colleague, School of Anthropology, University of Arizona- Sikopo NYAMBE, Assistant Professor, Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido University

Report on the Seminar of the
Indigeneity Research Unit, GSI
Hirofumi KATO

1

, Joe WATKINS

2, Sikopo NYAMBE

3

1 Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido University, Japan, h-kato@let.
hokudai.ac.jp, 2 School of Anthropology, University of Arizona, USA, 3 Center for Ainu
and Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido University, Japan.

Introduction
The seminar of the Indigeneity Research Unit was held online on 21 January 2022, with theaim of discussing possible research and collaborations between unit members. Prof. Hirofumi Kato(Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido University, Japan), introduced four possible
research areas to be explored by members that could be conducted during the 5-year timeframeof the Global Station for Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity (GSI), namely: (i) Defining
indigeneity and related issues (political, social, cultural); (ii) Contemporary concerns facing
Cultural Diversity; (iii) Perspectives on diversity in historical interpretation; and (iv) Indigenous
repatriation (Indigenous rights, international repatriation, Indigenous participation).
Discussion time was also allocated toward developing the first-year plan with particularfocus on joint research in Hokkaido Prefecture, online seminars and seminars aimed at including
and educating young scholars, GSI sessions at international conferences and joint publications.
Members were encouraged to share any additional topics of interest for discussion.

Possible Research Projects in Hokkaido, Japan
Prof. Kato introduced three possible collaborative research projects based in Hokkaido
Prefecture, all three having potential for collaborations with the local community. A summary of
the focus and potential of these projects is as follows:
1. Saru River Basin (Nibutani, Biratori Town)
	Nibutani is a district of Biratori Town which is home to a large number of Ainu, theIndigenous people of Hokkaido. Collaborative research with Biratori Town’s local Ainu
community would be aimed at Indigenous cultural heritage.
2. Lake Kusharo (Teshikaga Town):
Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 53–57, 2023
https://doi.org/10.57519/iscd.00003
Published by Global Station for Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity
https://gi-core.oia.hokudai.ac.jp/gsi/publication.html

53

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 53–57, 2023

	The Lake Kusharo area is within a national park, and has a very well-preserved naturalenvironment, over 100 archaeological sites, and some of the oldest Ainu villages whichdate back to the 19th century. The town aims to develop an eco-museum system including
cultural heritage and Ainu Language place names, archaeological monuments, andenvironmental resources.
3. Tokachi River (Urahoro Town)
	There have been legal discussions between the national government and the local Ainu
community regarding fishing rights in the Tokachi River area. Residue analysis has shownthat the use of salmon resources goes back to the early Jomon Period, and to this end,
the community has expressed an interest in research collaboration focused on recovery
of Indigenous rights. Notably, the upper Tokachi River area is also a key archaeologicalarea, holding the oldest pottery found in Hokkaido.

Suggested Research Themes
Based on the suggested research projects, Prof. Peter Jordan (Department of Archaeology andAncient History, Lund University, Sweden) offered four themes for further discussion: (i) Food
traditions and regional cuisine; (ii) Repatriation of artefacts and remains; (iii) Community andIndigenous Archaeology; and (iv) Historical Ecology (Cornerstone species).

Origin of Regional Cuisines and Indigenous Foodways
Prof. Jordan linked this theme to the possibility of research in the Tokachi River area, citing
studies in Stockholm on the origin of cuisine. In Ishikari Town, Hokkaido, Ishikari Nabe – a
traditional winter hot pot dish which includes predominant use of salmon – dates back thousandsof years to the beginning of the Holocene. Today, the popular dish is a source of economic gain.
In addition to taking a deeper look at salmon harvesting and storage, there is the opportunity
to investigate other food sources, e.g., acorn harvesting and deer hunting. Through tracing foodorigins, these studies feed into the discussions on Indigenous rights as it relates to food traditions.
Adding to the discussion on food and Indigenous rights, Prof. Rick Schulting (School of
Archaeology and Wolfson College, University of Oxford, United Kingdom) introduced the use ofbiochemical and molecular analysis of human artefacts and remains. He cited a previous research
partnership with the Indigenous communities in British Columbia, who, like the Ainu of TokachiRiver, were having legal fishing rights discussions with the government. Analysis of the residue inpots and human remains was able to prove the dietary habits of the community who were no longer
living as close to the water source.
The discussion highlighted the opportunities GSI has to support Indigenous rights, cultural
heritage and Indigenous ways of life, and the opportunities academia and research can offer tocommunities through collaborative research and increased community participation. This also54

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 53–57, 2023

emphasized the need to share research results with the communities in both written and verbal
forms with language translations as needed.

Indigenous Repatriation
Prof. Jordan introduced the topic by referring to a review by Kakaliouras (2021) of ‘The
Routledge Companion to Indigenous Repatriation: Return, Reconcile, Renew’ (Fforde et al. 2020).
He noted that while the book gave insightful historical reflection, it highlighted an opportunity forforward reflection, zoning in on repatriation as the future of archaeology. He then cited an article
by Collard et al. (2019) on Community Bioarcheology to compare the activities of Archaeologicalscience in the past and current repatriation. The research uniquely combined genetics and community
archaeology in a community project.
Looking forward to possible research activities, the theme offered an opportunity to explore
the repatriation of remains to specific communities despite the lack of origin information. During
the discussion, Prof. Michael Pickering (Department of Heritage and Museum Studies, Australian
National University, Australia) highlighted the importance of investigating the nature of the culture
from which the objects came, including how the artifacts were moved from place to place, thevarious cultural contexts of the artifacts movements, and why communities would want theirartifacts back. His comment also explored the cultural context of secular museum collections.
Prof. Carl-Gösta Ojala (Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Upsala University,
Sweden) mentioned the possibility for international comparative perspectives on repatriation inreference to Sami Heritage. In mapping locations of various Sami artefacts, consideration has beenplaced on how and why they were collected, and several Nordic national museums are involvedin the process. The repatriation of artefacts also opens a doorway to discussions on colonialism,
complex histories, and engaging with the decolonization process.
As it relates to artefacts, Prof. Mika Lavento (Department of Cultures, University of Helsinki,
Finland) expressed his interest in ceramic and metal research and highlighted the international
mapping and tracing potential through comparisons of similar metal objects through Scandinavia
to as far as China. He linked this to the possibilities for international comparisons in environmental
research.
Prof. Kato mentioned the international nature of repatriation and the importance of international
collaboration toward repatriation and repatriation studies. He gave an example of the movementof Ainu remains from Japan to Australia and the possibility of future research exploring artefact
exchanges, and the background and history of anthropological collections.

Material Traditions and Historical Ecology: Cornerstone species
Prof. Jordan introduced the topic of Material Traditions, the learning of traditional crafts of
the land on the landscape, e.g., boat building. He mentioned how material traditions served as a
medium for Indigenous revival, and transmission of knowledge and skills to future generations.
He referred to the work of ISTEAM (Indigenous Science, Technology, Engineering, Art and55

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 53–57, 2023

Mathematics) and their work in supporting Indigenous resurgence through (re)making relations
with lands, waters, and peoples towards just, sustainable, and culturally thriving futures (ISTEAM
Collaborative 2020).
He tied this into historical ecology and the exploration of key local resources and cornerstone
species, e.g., forests, grazing lands, specific species, and combinations thereof. Within this research
theme, focus would be placed on terrestrial ecosystems of resources that have been central toIndigenous communities. This includes understanding historical impacts and baselines, andhow findings can be used to manage and predict future states of both specific and whole cultural
ecosystems. He cited work by Daniel Lepofsky et al. (2021) in the Pacific Northwest Coast on
the management of wild landscapes for creation/rejuvenation of sustainable ecosystems andcommunities. Again, this would require community engagement, feeding into the larger discussion
on Archaeology and its relations to broader society impact.

Indigeneity Unit First-Year Plan
As part of their first-year plan, Unit A members discussed the various collaborative possibilities.
Pertaining to seminars, plans included organization of a themed/topical round table discussion
focused on: (i) the relationship between State and non-State societies from the perspective of social
archaeology and anthropology; and (ii) the Island environment: archaeology, anthropology, history,sociology, political science.
Prof. Kato suggested the Unit have seminars aimed at young scholars with the intention of
offering seminar organizing opportunities to post-doctoral researchers and PhD students fromvarious GSI member institutions. Through the seminars, the young scholars would be givena chance to exchange ideas with leading scholars on pressing topics. Due to the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic, online seminars were recommended. Post-pandemic, preference was given
to in-person seminars. This would create opportunity for travel and field site excursions.
The Hokkaido Summer Institute (HSI) under Hokkaido University was offered as an opportune
platform for advertisement of seminars to young scholars within and outside Hokkaido University
with the possibility of offering course credits to students. Through HSI, students from Hokkaido
University and abroad could apply for seminars.

Indigenous Considerations for Hokkaido: The Ainu
PeopleIn closing, Dr. Mai Ishihara (Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido University,
Japan), a member of the Ainu community, shared her views on the Unit’s responsibility to the
Ainu communities in Hokkaido. She expressed the need to consider how the Ainu people would
be defined by GSI, and their relationship with the Global Station in reflection of GSI’s location in56

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 53–57, 2023

Hokkaido, Japan. She also stressed the need to consider and limit language barriers, while creatinga space for community engagement, with the hope that the Ainu community would benefit frompartnership with GSI and Unit A’s activities.

References
Collard, M., Wasef, S., Adams, S., Wright, K., Mitchell, R. J., Wright, J. L., Wrobel, G., Nagle,N., Miller, A., Wood, R., Pietsch T. J., Van Holst Pellekaan S., Flinders, C. & Westaway,
M. C. (2019). Giving it a burl: towards the integration of genetics, isotope chemistry,and osteoarchaeology in Cape York, Tropical North Queensland, Australia. World
Archaeology, 51(4), 602-619. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2019.1686418
Fforde, C., McKeown, C. T., & Keeler, H. (2020). The Routledge Companion to Indigenous
Repatriation. Routledge.
ISTEAM Collaborative. (2020). Indigenous STEAM: Science, Technology, Engineering, Art andMathematics resources for families, teachers, and communities. Retrieved from https://indigenoussteam.org/
Kakaliouras, A. M. (2021). The Routledge companion to Indigenous repatriation: Return,
Reconcile, Renew. C. Fforde, C. T. McKeown, & H. Keeler (Eds.). Routledge. Antiquity,95(384), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.149
Lepofsky, D., Toniello, G., Earnshaw, J., Roberts, C., Wilson, L., Rowell, K., & Holmes, K.
(2021). Ancient anthropogenic clam gardens of the northwest coast expand clam habitat.
Ecosystems, 24(2), 248-260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-020-00515-6

57

5. Report on the Seminar of the Indigenous Heritage Research Unit, GSI- James LETSON, Graduate Student, Graduate School of Humanities and Human Sciences, Hokkaido University- Akiko TASHIRO, Associate Professor, Research Faculty of Media and Communication, Hokkaido University

Report on the Seminar of the
Indigenous Heritage Research Unit,
GSIJames LETSON

1, Akiko TASHIRO2

1 Graduate School of Humanities and Human Sciences, Hokkaido University, Japan,
2 Research Faculty of Media and Communication, Hokkaido University, Japan,
tashiroa@imc.hokudai.ac.jp.

Introduction
This seminar of the Indigenous Heritage Research Unit was held online on 22 January 2022.
The seminar aimed to share work by unit members, and to discuss expected works or collaborative
research for future GSI projects. The three presentations shared during the seminar are summarized
below.

“Eight Steps to Improve Research Practices Involving Indigenous Peoples and their
Heritage,” by Professor George Nicholas, Simon Fraser University
Dr George Nicholas’ presentation outlined recent developments and current challenges
for research concerning Indigenous peoples and their heritage. He took as his starting point, theprinciple that all people should have free access to, and be able to benefit from, their heritage as abasic human right. As such, any research involving Indigenous groups must not only be ethically
responsible (including free, prior, and informed consent), but also beneficial to the people involved.
Nicholas then highlighted the positive impact that recent research has had for Indigenous
groups, including more effective protection of heritage sites and materials, and increased participationof Indigenous and minority groups in archaeology, academia, and professional institutions. Anotherimportant change has been the impact of education; not only through more education opportunities
for members of Indigenous groups, but also through bringing the lessons of socially responsible
research back to the classroom to inform new generations of students. This ties in with increased
awareness and action at the national and international level, such as the United Nations Declarationon the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
However, the talk also called attention to continuing challenges and cautioned againstcomplacency or inaction regarding these issues. These problems include: a) the disturbance,

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 58–61, 2023
https://doi.org/10.57519/iscd.00004
Published by Global Station for Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity
https://gi-core.oia.hokudai.ac.jp/gsi/publication.html

58

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 58–61, 2023

destruction, or restricting access to heritage or sacred sites; b) the unauthorized study of ancestral
human remains, and difficulties associated with their repatriation; c) the dismissal of traditional
values and beliefs; d) the commodification of indigeneity and the appropriation of material culture;and e) the limiting of Indigenous groups’ participation in institutional decision making. A lack ofaction regarding such concerns can lead to economic, cultural, and spiritual damage to individuals
and communities. In turn, this can contribute to the further loss of land, language, social networks,
lifeways, and cultural practices, and can even lead to wider social unrest in reaction to these issues.
Dr Nicholas outlined his steps for researchers to positively respond to these challenges asfollows: increasing Indigenous participation, respecting indigenous intellectual property, improving
research ethics, employing new methods, developing better heritage protection policies, expanding
corporate social responsibility, increasing outreach education, and pursuing new research based on
Indigenous knowledge. He concluded by pointing out the need for researchers to engage in honest
and meaningful dialogue with Indigenous stakeholders in order to tackle these problems in-stepwith those who are directly affected by them.
He also emphasized that: a) “heritage” means different things to different peoples; b) outsiders
are not the best qualified to determine what is proper care for Indigenous in/tangible heritage
items and places; c) there is need for effective and bi-directional translation of the values, goals,
perspectives, methods and research ethics necessary for heritage protection and preservation; and d)patience is required when engaging in difficult conversations about heritage, and that a willingness
to respect cultural differences is essential.

“Ethnic Tourism and Local Development in China,” by Associate Professor Zhang
Tianxin, Peking University
The presentation by Dr Zhang Tianxin explored the relationships between tourism, urban
development, and Indigenous minority communities in China, paying particular attention to theprocesses involved in developing indigenous areas for the purpose of encouraging tourism, andthe impact this has on those regions’ “cultural landscapes.” Of particular concern for Dr Zhang is
the influence of this on the spiritual and ecological environments of indigenous’ people’s sacred
mountains.
After introducing the recent trend towards ethnic tourism in China, and the resulting
development of indigenous areas as tourist attractions, the presentation laid out the main problems
which occur during these processes, namely the lack of inclusion of local residents in decisionmaking, the irrevocable change of landscape and space, and the loss of traditional beliefs andpractices which are considered irrelevant to providing the desired tourist experience. In addition,
those customs and skills which are incorporated into attractions for visitors’ risk becoming mere
performance, potentially damaging the “authenticity” and “integrity” of Indigenous culture.
Using two case studies, namely Lijiang and Qinghai in China, Dr Zhang introduced thenotion of sacred mountains as “cultural landscapes.” That is, areas in which traditional beliefs andpractices intertwine with natural ecologies. In Lijiang, the construction of a ski site and other tourist
59

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 58–61, 2023

facilities on the sacred Yulongxueshan mountain has resulted in high volumes of tourists, which
has had a negative impact on the mountain’s ecosystem, as well as locals’ image of this sacredsite. By contrast, the case of Sanjiangyuan National Park shows how scientific research has been
complimentary to the area’s Indigenous beliefs. In this case, efforts by scientists to protect sites of
ecological importance have dovetailed with the local Indigenous peoples’ efforts to safeguard theirsacred mountain sites.
In agreement with the other presenters, Dr Zhang concluded by pointing out the importanceof including local people in planning and decision-making. Moreover, this must be done withrespect and sensitivity towards Indigenous beliefs and practices, a respect which must also be
instilled in tourists and visitors who come to enjoy the area and its attractions.

“Investigating Ainu Tourism in the Past and Present for Sustainable Indigenous Tourism
Development within Japan,” by Associate Professor Mayumi Okada and Professor
Johan Edelheim, Hokkaido University
Dr Mayumi Okada and Dr Johan Edlelheim’s presentation focused on the issues involved
in indigenous tourism connected to the Ainu people of Hokkaido/Ainu Mosir, Northern Japan. It
considered Ainu cultural tourism in its specific, historical context, and explored the potential in
Hokkaido/Ainu Mosir for an approach based on Bennett’s (1986) “ethnorelativism” and Viken,
Höckert and Grimwood’s (2021) “culturally sensitive tourism.”
Beginning with a brief introduction to the colonial history of Hokkaido/Ainu Mosir,
the presentation outlined three key phases in the development of Japanese tourism vis-à-vis the
Ainu people. The late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries saw Ainu people portrayed as an‘exotic’ attraction for the burgeoning domestic tourism industry, where the Ainu could be used as a‘primitive’ foil against which Japan’s modernizing civilization could be measured. The next Ainu
tourism boom was from the 1960s to the 1990s, during which time Ainu crafts were promoted assouvenirs. This had the result of fostering traditional skills and craft techniques, but these were
often exploited by ethnic Japanese tour operators who still viewed the Ainu as ‘backward.’ The
final phase covered the official recognition of the Ainu as an Indigenous people by the Japanese
government in 2008, to the present day. Improvements in the legal and cultural status of the Ainu
has led to various policies aimed at improving Ainu representation and participation in the tourism
industry, as well as in institutional decision-making. This movement culminated in the opening of
Upopoy – the Symbolic Space for Ethnic Harmony, which houses the National Ainu Museum, thefirst state-funded national museum dedicated to Indigenous culture in Japan.
Despite these recent improvements, Okada and Edelheim pointed out a major ongoingchallenge, namely the inherently unequal power-balance between the Ainu people and the corporate
businesses at the centre of the Japanese tourism industry. However, they also highlighted the efforts
of organizations such as the Akan Ainu Consulun and the Hokkaido Destination Management
Organization to provide advice and guidelines for the promotion and branding of Ainu cultural
products. According to the presenters, such efforts provide the potential for “culturally sensitive
tourism,” whereby tourism can provide a space for an encounter with the Other that is more
60

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 58–61, 2023

reflexive than in the past. In this way, tourism can help foster cultural exchanges based not oncommodification and exploitation, but on the “three Rs” of respect, recognition, and reciprocity.

Discussion
Cultural diversity, multi-cultural coexistence, and mutual understanding of society are key
words for the GSI project. Collaboration or partnership between Indigenous peoples and nonIndigenous people, or between minorities and the majority is crucial for indigenous studies. In thediscussion, Professor Yamamura of Hokkaido University raised two important issues. The first one
was “encouragement.” That is, thinking about how we can encourage participation of involved
people, especially Indigenous peoples, and how minorities can establish equality with the majority.
The second point was “social systems, or public mindset;” finding ways to create social systems
or a public mindset for encouraging mutual understanding or multicultural coexistence. Professor
Nicholas and Professor Joe Watkins each mentioned the importance of building trust with people,
noting that it takes a long time to gain the trust of stakeholders and to understand a community’s
ideas. Professor Zhang agreed to these points and mentioned the importance of “public mindset.”
Open knowledge could be another way to show local people’s wisdom or a public mindset, and theneed to negotiate and communicate with people, that is, not to fix the system but to strengthen thesystem together. Professor Edelheim emphasised that “acknowledgement” is crucial for expressing
GSI’s position to the public. Acknowledgement on the GSI website or at the beginning of eachpresentation helps us to remember that we are always “outsiders” or “guests” on the land. Professor
Okada mentioned that there are multiple stakeholders in cultural heritage management, and eachof them have different values and backgrounds. The important thing is to find out what are thecommon issues among these different people. The discussion closed with the sharing of suggestions
and recommendations from seminar participants, and the possibilities of collaborative work, e.g.,comparative studies on the cultural landscapes in Okinawa, Hokkaido and China by Prof. Zhang
and Prof. Yamamura in the near future.

References
Bennett, M. J. (1986). A Developmental Approach to Training for Intercultural Sensitivity.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2), 179-195. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0147-1767(86)90005-2
Viken, A., Höckert, E. & Grimwood, B. S. R. (2021). Cultural Sensitivity: Engaging Differencein Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 89, 103223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
annals.2021.103223

61

6. Human Ecology and Global Health Research Unit Seminar- Sikopo NYAMBE, Assistant Professor, Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido University- Akira SAI, Assistant Professor, Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido University- Taro YAMAUCHI, Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University

Human Ecology and Global HealthResearch Unit Seminar
Sikopo NYAMBE

1, Akira SAI

2, Taro YAMAUCHI

3

1 Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido University, Japan, snyambe@let.
hokudai.ac.jp, 2 Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido University, Japan,
3 Faculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, Japan.

Introduction
On Day Two of the Global Station for Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity’s (GSI) KickOff Symposium (22 January 2022), the Human Ecology and Global Health Research Unit (HEGHRU) held an online seminar comprising members of the research unit and interested members of
GSI. The seminar aimed to introduce the varying works and research interests of unit members andexplore possible collaborations between them and towards GSI’s goals.
The opening remarks shared by Prof. Taro Yamauchi (Faculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido
University, Japan), introduced the two main disciplines within the Unit: Global Health and Resource
Management, citing the interdisciplinary core and nature of the unit. As an introductory seminar
towards considering the unit’s contributions to GSI for its initial four years of operation, Prof.
Yamauchi requested that focus be placed on not only defining the multi-disciplinary identity within
the unit, but also the inter-disciplinary identity within GSI and finally, a transdisciplinary identity
within society.
For this purpose, the seminar was scheduled to have each of the nine unit members give ashort presentation outlining their research works, interests and areas of likely contribution andcollaboration followed by a time for discussion. The contents of the member presentations, brief
discussion and overall conclusions have been summarized in this report.

HEGH-RU Member Presentations: Current trends andresearch interests
Prof. Taro Yamauchi (Faculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, Japan)
Prof. Yamauchi introduced Dr. Sikopo Nyambe and Dr. Akira Sai as members of his research

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 62–68, 2023
https://doi.org/10.57519/iscd.00005
Published by Global Station for Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity
https://gi-core.oia.hokudai.ac.jp/gsi/publication.html

62

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 62–68, 2023

team at the Laboratory of Human Ecology. His introduction provided an overview of the theories
within their collaborative work. He presented Food-Body-WASH nexus: ‘Food’ (change in diet andglobalization), ‘Body’ (body size and body composition among adults, child growth, body image
and physical activity and physical fitness) and WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene: focusing
on use, facilities, knowledge, attitudes, and practices, and most recently, Menstrual Hygiene
Management and COVID-19) (Yamauchi et al. 2022, Yamauchi 2007). Through their work, they
have noted the importance of the linkages between each of these themes for a comprehensive
understanding of human health, deeming the nexus a suitable means of exploring the fundamental
components of human life and wellbeing. Prof. Yamauchi presented the Bio-Psycho-Social (BPS)model proposed by Dr. George Engel (Engel 1981) as a possible means of making use of theFood-Body-WASH nexus. Unlike the biomedical model which focuses more on one’s biology, the
BPS model explores biological, psychological (e.g., thoughts, emotions, and behaviors), and social(e.g., socioeconomical, socioenvironmental, and cultural) factors and the role they play in health,disease, quality of life and wellbeing.

Dr. Sikopo Nyambe (Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido University, Japan)
Dr. Nyambe’s presentation focused on Participatory Action Research (PAR) being conducted
in Lusaka City, Zambia, a low-middle income country in sub-Saharan Africa. WASH and healththrough SDG 6 and 3 respectively were key focal points, particularly in how they relate to thefrequent diarrheal disease outbreaks in Lusaka peri-urban despite diarrheal diseases being treatableand preventable. For research purposes, she established the Dziko Langa Club (DL) which focusedon incorporating children and youth as researchers and innovators in WASH (Nyambe and Yamauchi
2021). DL made use of participatory research approaches such as photovoice (Wang 2006) and art(Franz 2010) for problem identification and data analysis. Of interest were the activities selected byyoung participants for engagement with their broader communities: poetry, drama, song, and group
discussions were added to the events as common community practices for information sharing.
Future research plans based on the DL experience focus on implementing the DL model withdiverse communities, including those of indigenous peoples such as the Baka Pygmies of Cameroon;
this may uncover novel and/or traditional methods of conducted PAR and will highlight different
ways of doing and knowing in relation to WASH, waste and menstrual hygiene management.

Dr. Akira Sai (Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido University, Japan)
Dr. Sai’s presentation focused on obesity and body image in consideration of psychologicaland sociocultural factors for health. He noted that countries of the South Pacific were predominantlyin the top 10 for obesity prevalence in 2016; this was also true of obesity prevalence in children
with body mass indices indicating drastic change from 1995 to 2018. Changes in perceived
body size among Polynesian populations has also increased over the last two decades, with adecreased tolerance towards having a larger body size. This may be due to ‘Body Image’, apersons’ multidimensional self-attitude towards their own appearance based on their beliefs,
assumptions, feelings, perceptions, and various behavioral aspects (investments) in appearance.
63

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 62–68, 2023

This psychological aspect of human health is associated with obesity and fat phobia, representing
a drive for thinness, particularly among young females.
Dr. Sai explored sociocultural factors and pressures from family and peers, conventional andmodern media and ethnocultural norms impact individuals’ aesthetic values, which many studies
have suggested contributing to diversity in body image. He also considered differences between
Western and non-Western countries, and among local ethnic groups, citing his published work on
the Malay, Chinese and Indian ethnic groups of Malaysia (Sai et al. 2018). Dr. Sai’s future researchand collaborations focused on exploring health and quality of life among broader populations,
including indigenous communities by looking at sociocultural factors, (intra-ethnic differences),and biological and social health outcomes as they relate to body image.

Prof. Stanley Ulijaszek (School of Anthropology and Unit for Biocultural Variation andObesity, University of Oxford, United Kingdom)
Prof. Ulijaszek has conducted research on evolving human diet and nutrition for about two
decades. Current focus has been centered on dietary modernization, changing food habits, foodpatterns, and global food systems, and their relationship to chronic disease risk among others.
He presented on his obesity research under the Unit for Biocultural Variation and Obesity at the
University of Oxford. His presentation was broken into four parts: the political ecology of obesity,models of obesity, physical activity and urbanism, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic
on food, physical and mental health, and the limits of public and domestic health. In 2017, Prof.
Ulijaszek published ‘Models of Obesity: From Ecology to Complexity in Science and Policy’(Ulijaszek 2017) which focused on the different ways in which obesity is framed as a complex
problem, modeling a complex system of obesity.
Prof. Ulijaszek ’s work has also covered physical activity, with focus on the body, built
environments and smart cities discourses using approaches framed as life history and early exposuresin production of obesity. This includes policy types and variations according to political type, andstructural factors that shape the health of physical environments. Finally, Prof. Ulijaszek looked atmental health eating and physical activity during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to survey
work during the first lockdown in the UK, anxiety levels and suicidal tendencies had increased
threefold, and binge-eating more than doubled among others. Several reports and evidence briefsof these changes were submitted to the UK government (McLennan et al., 2020).
For future research, Prof. Ulijaszek is interested in continuing research on obesity, particularly
pertaining to the paradigm shift in terms of networks, complexity, and multi-level modeling.
Artificial intelligence and machine reading has been helpful in exploring existing literature on theobesity environment and breaking down obesity from one field into five, aiding in better framingof arguments around, and directing of resources towards greater impact on obesity intervention.

Prof. Josh Snodgrass (Department of Anthropology and Global Health Program,
University of Oregon, USA)64

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 62–68, 2023

In his presentation, Professor Snodgrass highlighted the focus of his lab, the Global Health
Biomarker Laboratory, and his long-term field projects in Siberia and Ecuador. He also shared
about his long-term collaboration with the World Health Organization, and community healthwork in Oregon. His work focuses on the influence of changes in social and environmental factors
on health, exploring the connection between certain underlying biological, behavioral, social andenvironmental changes. Most recently, he has focused on the role of physical and social factors
in suicidal ideation, anxiety, depression, and other mental conditions, particularly with aging
populations.
Prof. Snodgrass’ future research interests relate to human ecology and the health and wellbeingof Indigenous communities. He proposed encouraging Indigenous communities and individuals
to play a greater role in driving the research based on their desires and needs by way of a mixed
method, biocultural approach.

Prof. Thomas Thornton (Alaska Coastal Rainforest Center, University of Alaska, USA)
Most of Prof. Thornton’s work integrates cultural anthropology and indigenous perspectives oncontemporary human ecological issues, including environment and health. He proposed combining
human health, animal health and environmental health into one integrated health concept, as
embodied in the One Health framework, which is now used and adapted widely in Alaska andelsewhere. In reference to the Indigenous people of Alaska, Prof. Thornton noted their more holistic
and integrated views of human-environmental health and how it had made it difficult for themto frame their problems within a more segmented, specialized Western framework. This further
impacted their ability to access funding for health programs based on their own models of ecocultural health. Indigenous Alaskans are now attempting to reframe the concept and Indigenize the
One Health concept through organizations like the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, which
serves more than 150,000 Alaska Native and other American Indians. Indigenous health services
have become not only a major driver of Alaska’s economy, but also a vehicle for transforming
the health sector, including the ways health is conceptualized, professionals are trained, and careis deployed. This case highlights the importance and potential for holistic, Indigenous culturalmodels of health to be realized within a One Health relational framework of human-environmental
wellbeing.
His discussion on Alaska and its diversity also brought forth themes related to biocultural
diversity, niche environments, food and energy systems, environmental protection, and health. To
this effect, he published a book on herring and people in the North Pacific focusing mainly on
Alaska and British Columbia, with comparative reference to Europe, Russia and Japan (Thornton &Moss 2020). Prof. Thornton’s other interests include resilience and adaptation of human wellbeing
to climate and environmental change. He also explores how indigenous social organization, law,and property rights have been actively undermined and replaced by modern, Western institutions.
He discussed environmental health as a big systemic issue in the North due to the Western Arctic
and Subarctic regions being on the vanguard of major climatic change, such as loss of sea ice andpermafrost, which are critical to the lifeways of Alaska Natives and Canada First Nations.
65Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 62–68, 2023

Dr. Masatoshi Sasaoka (Faculty of Humanities and Human Sciences, Hokkaido University,
Japan)
Dr. Sasaoka conducts extensive research on resource management with a focus on (i) local
knowledge and its transformation; (ii) the impacts of state policies on local livelihood and local
responses to policy; (iii) local land and resource use decisions; (iv) environmental governance; and(v) land/resource conflict. He is currently working on three different projects in Indonesia.
The first study in gold-rich North Kalimantan, Borneo, explores the impacts of thesocioeconomic benefits gained from motorized small-scale gold mining (MSGM) in relation to
local perceptions on the environmental impact with a particular focus on subsistence activities(river fisheries). Dr. Sasaoka also explores the factors and conditions that would enable the local
people to avoid choosing socially and environmentally destructive land uses. The second explores
the social factors underlying illegal squatting in industrial tree plantations (Musi Rawas, South
Sumatra), while discussing socially just resolutions to illegal occupation. The third is a casestudy on the hidden victimization in self-regulatory governance for the responsible productionof paper products (Tebo, Jambi), in which Dr. Sasaoka explores loss of land access suffered by
local communities and the process of invisibilization of victimization through analysis of theselective disclosure of information in corporate social responsibility communications. Based on
his background, Dr. Sasaoka suggested future research relating to multicultural inclusive resource
governance which would create opportunities for development of resource governance systems
involving multiple stakeholders including Indigenous people groups. He also brought forth thethemes of ecological grief.

Prof. Elena Godina (Institute and Museum of Anthropology, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Russia)
Prof. Godina focused on changes in human biology with particular emphasis on the influenceof sports and physical activity on growth and development. She shared on her previous research inwhich she conducted 15 growth studies in various populations and ethnic groups of Russia (at thattime, the Soviet Union), mostly among Russian children. She used maps to visualize the spatial
distribution of variables like height, weight, and age at menarche among populations of interest.
She had also partnered with Mongolian National Institute of Physical Culture, studying growthand development of Mongolian children and adolescence, exploring rural urban differences, andthe influence of different climatic zones social conditions and different levels of physical activity.
Currently, Prof. Godina is directing several methodological investigations, comparing various
methods of studying body composition, and accumulating several big datasets. These datasets spanrural-urban differences, as well as ethnic and wider population differences. She intends to use thesebig data on morphological characteristics from various populations for meta-analysis.

66

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 62–68, 2023

Potential Collaborative Outcomes
After all presentations were finalized, there was opportunity for unit members to briefly discusspossible research collaborations. It was noted that the unit had two distinctive themes – Global
Health and Research Management – both exploring the interaction between human populations
and their natural and sociocultural environment.. Emphasis was placed on ensuring collaborations
between these distinct themes.
Publication of research works was one means of collaboration which was brought forward.
In addition to the GSI e-journal that was to be launched, the unit discussed the possibility of
publishing a series of books by the end of the GSI term. Each unit member would have opportunity
to make chapter contributions focused on their research areas and interests.

References
Engel, G. L. (1981). The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model. The Journal of
Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 6(2), 101124. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/6.2.101
Franz, J. (2010). Arts-based research for teachers, researchers and supervisors. In Researching
Practice (pp. 217-226). Brill.
McLennan, A. K., Hansen, A. K. K., & Ulijaszek, S. J. (2020). Health and medicine cannot solve
COVID-19. The Lancet, 396(10251), 599-600.
Nyambe, S., & Yamauchi, T. (2022). Peri-urban water, sanitation and hygiene in Lusaka, Zambia:
photovoice empowering local assessment via ecological theory. Global Health Promotion,29(3), 259-267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757975921995713
Sai, A., Othman, M. Y., Zaini, W. F. Z. W., Tan, C. S. Y., Norzilan, N. I. M., Tomojiri, D.,& Furusawa, T. (2018). Factors affecting body image perceptions of female college
students in urban Malaysia. Obesity Medicine, 11, 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
obmed.2018.06.004
Thornton, T. F., & Moss, M. L. (2020). Herring and People of the North Pacific: Sustaining a
Keystone Species. University of Washington Press.
Ulijaszek, S. J. (2017). Models of obesity: From ecology to complexity in science and policy,(Vol. 78). Cambridge University Press.
Wang, C. C. (2006). Youth participation in photovoice as a strategy for community change.
Journal of Community Practice, 14(1-2), 147-161. https://doi.org/10.1300/J125v14n01_09
Yamauchi, T., Nakao, S., & Harada, H. (2022). The Sanitation Triangle: Socio-Culture, Healthand Materials (p.264). Springer Nature.
67

Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity Vol.1 (1) pp. 62–68, 2023

Yamauchi, T. (2007). Modernization, nutritional adaptability and health in Papua New Guinea
Highlanders and Solomon Islands. In R. Otsuka & S. J. Ulijaszek (Eds.), Health Change
in the Asia-Pacific Region. Cambridge University Press.

68