Suchergebnisse

Modernity has helped to popularize, and at the same time threaten, indigeneity. Anthropologists question both the validity of the concept of indigeneity and the wisdom of employing it as a political tool, but they are reluctant to deny it to local communities, whose use of the concept has become subject to study. The concept of indigenous knowledge is similarly faulted in favor of the hybrid products of modernity, and the idea of indigenous environmental knowledge and conservation is heatedly contested. Possibilities for alternate environmentalisms, and the combining of conservation and development goals, are being debated and tested in integrated conservation and development projects and extractive reserves. Anthropological understanding of both state and community agency is being rethought, and new approaches to the study of collaboration, indigenous rights movements, and violence are being developed. These and other current topics of interest involving indigenous peoples challenge anthropological theory as well as ethics and suggest the importance of analyzing the contradictions inherent in the coevolution of science, society, and environment.

The rights of self-determination of indigenous peoples within states often branches in 2 directions: a drive for more autonomy for indigenous nations and a demand for greater participation in the decision-making institutions of the state. These branches of indigenous self-determination appear to fit very closely with the twin pillars of federalism - self-rule and shared-rule. There are many aspects of federalism that can provide a context for accommodating the self-determination of indigenous peoples within federal states. The drive for greater autonomy, or self-rule, can be accommodated through a public form of government where indigenous people are the demographic majority in a region, or through the exercise of the aboriginal right of self-government and the negotiation of intergovernmental agreements. (Original abstract - amended)

The right of self‐determination of indigenous peoples within states often branches in two directions: (1) a drive for more autonomy for indigenous nations and (2) a demand for greater participation in the decision‐making institutions of the state. These two branches of indigenous self‐determination appear to fit very closely with the twin pillars of federalism ‐ self‐rule and shared‐rule. There are many aspects of federalism that can provide a context for accommodating the self‐determination of indigenous peoples within federal states. The drive for greater autonomy, or self‐rule, can be accommodated through a public form of government where indigenous people are the demographic majority in a region, or through the exercise of the aboriginal right of self‐government and the negotiation of intergovernmental agreements. The demand for greater participation in the decision‐making institutions of the state, or shared‐rule, can be met by guaranteed representation for indigenous peoples in the legislatures of federations, in the creation of Aboriginal parliaments, in the creation of state dispute resolution mechanisms to address the needs of indigenous peoples, in the development of treaty‐making and treaty‐renewal processes, and through indigenous participation in the intergovern‐mentalrelations of federal states.

The right of self-determination of indigenous peoples within states often branches in two directions: (1) a drive for more autonomy for indigenous nations & (2) a demand for greater participation in the decision-making institutions of the state. These two branches of indigenous self-determination appear to fit very closely with the twin pillars of federalism -- self-rule & shared-rule. There are many aspects of federalism that can provide a context for accommodating the self-determination of indigenous peoples within federal states. The drive for greater autonomy, or self-rule, can be accommodated through a public form of government where indigenous people are the demographic majority in a region, or through the exercise of the aboriginal right of self-government & the negotiation of intergovernmental agreements. The demand for greater participation in the decision-making institutions of the state, or shared-rule, can be met by guaranteed representation for indigenous peoples in the legislatures of federations, in the creation of Aboriginal parliaments, in the creation of state dispute resolution mechanisms to address the needs of indigenous peoples, in the development of treaty-making & treaty-renewal processes, & through indigenous participation in the intergovernmental relations of federal states. 16 References. Adapted from the source document.

Political science research 6n indigenous peoples' politics in Latin America is methodologically diverse and interdisciplinary. It has produced significant insights about citizenship, reform of the state, and the causes and consequences of the emergence and success of identity-based social movements and political parties. In order to expand and deepen our knowledge, future research should pursue three goals. First, scholars should explore a wider selection of cases, including countries where indigenous populations are small and where dramatic events have not occurred, in order to better explain more common types of indigenous political mobilization in the region. Second, they should better connect the study of indigenous politics to that of Afro-descendent movements and gender and, thus, expand Our understanding of racial and gender politics. Third, they should be more critical of the democratic performance of indigenous organizations and politicians, especially when they hold public office. Adapted from the source document.