This book is a compilation of original international documents concerning indigenous peoples. The documents cover a period from 1455 to 2016. The documents reflects an international political and legal discourse filled with anxiety, colonialism, racism and atrocities until recent times. The documents also reflects the complicated relationship between indigenous peoples, states, international organizations and missionary projects.
The first time I visited, what is sometimes called the last Hawaiian fishing village, Miloli´i, South Kona, on the west coast of the island of Hawaii (The Big Island) in 1998, a villager took me out for fishing. We had a pretty decent catch of tuna that morning, she told me. Back to the house my newly found friends were soon preparing for a wonderful lunch with fresh tuna. Or, so I thought. To my disappointment I could see only rice, macaroni-sallad and Spam! Confused by this observation I said: How come you eat Spam when you have fresh fish? They looked at me and laughed: -Because we like it! This awkward situation I found myself in might have been a good enough explanation, or a fieldwork breakdown if you so wish, of something that really startled me. However, months and even years later I found out more intriguing connections between Spam, Native Hawaiians and the political cause the sovereignty movement is pursuing. For some groups in the sovereignty movement, separation from the U.S. is the goal they are striving for. Other groups have more modest claims aiming at strengthening "Hawaiian indigenous rights" in the U.S. The groups are however linked on one hand in their aversion to a lot of things in American culture and on the other hand the consumption of both American foods and culture. The villagers of the last fishing village in Hawai´i have a somewhat different attitude to things political: "We do it the Miloli´i way", as they often say. The villagers, in general, say they do not care much for politics and are not interested in what the sovereignty movement is doing, which is mainly occurring in Honolulu. But that is a statement with qualifications. American health authorities are quite often telling them that they should not eat fast food or having so much of a high-cholesterol intake as they have. So when the villagers say they eat Spam because they like it, they are disclosing a political attitude to the surrounding world. They do not care "what these Americans are saying". But, objectively speaking is not Spam bad food? Well, from a nutrition- and health perspective it might well be so. But food is not only about nutrition as a considerable amount of anthropologists and others have concluded. It is also, and maybe more so, about politics and social relations. For the villagers, Spam is about social life, and indirectly about politics and resistance towards American influence in Hawai´i. They care about the fish, and are really worried now when it is harder to catch a good "ahi". They love fish and other seafood and are ready to tell everything about how to find them. But, Spam is also close to their hearts. And that is not because it is cheap or practical. Paradoxically, by consuming Spam they resist American influence in the islands.
There is a gap between the normative ideas of universal human rights and social practice. This discrepancy in the human rights field is analysed in relation to the contemporary social and political marginalisation of indigenous peoples. The problem is analysed from the theoretical approach known as 'communitarian pragmatism'. Discrimination and oppression of indigenous peoples is still widespread, despite the global democratisation initiatives and the political and legal adoption of human rights principles. Based on several years of fieldwork on indigenous peoples and human rights, this paper argues that there are no such things as 'universal human rights'. The reason why human rights is not an adequate instrument is that the universalism of human rights focuses on a cosmopolitan individual, who is detached from his/her cultural and social context. However, indigenous peoples, like most other persons, live their lives in local social circumstances. The solution to this problem, it is argued, is that human rights have to be locally grounded to be a relevant instrument for social change.
