Suchergebnisse

The article deals with the representation of the Sámi in the new national curriculum for primary and lower secondary education in Norway. More precisely, it focuses on a specific formulation in the fourth core element of the curriculum for religious education, in which an awareness of Sámi perspectives is presented as part of the diversity competence which pupils are supposed to acquire. Based on a critical analysis of governmental documents dealing with education it is argued that the term 'diversity' as it is used in the fourth core element addresses Sámi perspectives in a way that may induce readers to think of the Sámi as one of an increasing number of minorities in an originally Norwegian society. This implication, even if unintended, is highly problematic. It can be interpreted as a violation of both ILO 169, Article 31 and CRC, Article 29 (1), especially since the Sámi are a people indigenous to Norway.

The term indigenous, long used to distinguish between those who are "native" and their "others" in specific locales, has also become a term for a geocultural category, presupposing a world collectivity of "indigenous peoples" in contrast to their various

Indigenous arts, simultaneously attuned to local voices and global cultural flows, have often been the vanguard in communicating what is at stake in the interactions, contradictions, disjunctions, opportunities, exclusions, injustices and aspirations that globalization entails. Focusing specifically on embodied arts and activism, this interdisciplinary volume offers vital new perspectives on the power and precariousness of indigeneity as a politicized cultural force in our unevenly connected world. Twenty-three distinct voices speak to the growing visibility of indigenous peoples' performance on a global scale over recent decades, drawing specific examples from the Americas, Australia, the Pacific, Scandinavia and South Africa. An ethical touchstone in some arenas and a thorny complication in others, indigeneity is now belatedly recognised as mattering in global debates about natural resources, heritage, governance, belonging and social justice, to name just some of the contentious issues that continue to stall the unfinished business of decolonization. To explore this critical terrain, the essays and images gathered here range in subject from independent film, musical production, endurance art and the performative turn in exhibition and repatriation practices to the appropriation of hip-hop, karaoke and reality TV. Collectively, they urge a fresh look at mechanisms of postcolonial entanglement in the early 21st century as well as the particular rights and insights afforded by indigeneity in that process.

My research explores the complex nature of identities, through the lens of indigeneity and its representation in museums. Simpson (2007) states, "To speak of Indigeneity is to speak of colonialism and anthropology" (p. 67). This perhaps sums up the common associations with "indigeneity", as the term defines itself and characterizes it. While indigeneity persists to have certain identities, diversity tends to dissect any given identities. Fascinated by this complex relation of epistemology and ontology, I examine how "indigeneity" is presented in exhibitions at two community history museums and a culturally specific museum. The three museums share similar economic circumstances, while the culturally specific museum (North Suburban Chicago) is situated within a community with a more diverse racial demographic than the two community history museums (West Suburban Chicago) with over 90% white residents. Three questions guided this research: How are narratives of indigeneity constructed in exhibitions at three museums? How do museum staff members conceptualize indigeneity and understand the complexity and politics of representation and museum display? What can be done to embrace more meaningful and critically considered representations of indigeneity in museum exhibitions? To answer these questions, I critically analyzed how exhibitions at each museum conceptualize and represent indigeneity, focusing on signs, labels, objects, and how these were arranged to create meanings. Using a comparative case study methodology, data were collected through observations, using photographs and field notes. Additional data were collected through interviews and secondary resources such as each museums' website, brochures, guides and newsletters. Problematic patterns were found involving the representation of American Indians in all three museums. All of the museums deemphasize the power relations of the white settlers and indigenous people, whether through omitting or mystifying the turmoil of historical events. This absence and aestheticization undermined the historical contexts of the exhibitions. In the case of the culturally specific museum, the emphasis was placed on factual knowledge of various tribes, objects and activities, which lacked critical knowledge of indigenous cultures and the historical contexts. It is questionable how these museums educate the public without tackling real issues or practicing the role of the museum as a civic agent. Therefore, the historical-sociopolitical/economic-contexts of objects and events are necessary for these exhibitions to better represent issues of indigeneity and critically consider diversity.

This paper explores how indigenous peoples negotiate with their state and mainstream narratives by glocalizing indigenous political and cultural identities through virtual spaces offered by digital technology or information and communication technology (ICT). The first section makes an announcement of its concern about how globalization and indigeneity at some points can involve themselves in an act of mutual making, a process of glocalization (localization + globalization). The second section offers a theoretical paradigm of globalization as a network of techno-culture and indigenous identity politics. The third section focuses on the Nepali indigeneity in the light of mutual influence between it and global indigenous issues as well as ICT. As indigenous peoples cannot stop the irresistible influence of global networks and flows (e.g., sociocultural and economic), they have to rather locate their political and cultural issues and identities in the very loci of globalization, mainly in the networks of technoculture and international indigenous politics. The Nepali indigenous community organizations' intermediary efforts have been rendered successful by the use of ICT and the strategic deployments of international indigenous forums like the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII).

This special issue sought to open a space for critical debates and reflections on the issues and challenges of bringing together Indigeneity and disability as an intersecting identity. The overall aim was to question and challenge existing approaches to modern Western understandings of disability, how it is regulated, governed and experienced once the cultural identity of being Indigenous is positioned at the fore. As editors of this special edition, we were conscious of our own cultural identities, Karen being first generation Australian of Southern European descent, and John being of the Yuin Nation of Australia's Aboriginal peoples. We engaged our own sense of the possibilities of examining the critical importance of alliances between non-Indigenous and Indigenous researchers working together as a partnership at a time when Australia's political environment had largely ignored Indigenous and non-Indigenous efforts to further Indigenous claims for national constitutional recognition. Unlike other white settler societies such as Canada, USA and New Zealand, Australia has never had a formal Treaty explicitly recognizing Indigenous Australia as the original owners, nor are Indigenous peoples recognized within our main constitutional instrument, despite more recent combined advocacy for this very realization. Thus, the struggles for Indigenous recognition and rights to culture, kin, and country remain highly contested within the white settler colonial nation of Australia. This political backdrop spurred our interest to bring together researchers, practitioners, and activists who work at the edges of disability and Indigenous practice. We wanted researchers who understand the politics of reconciliation but also the longstanding issues that underpin such politics. This is reflected in the gamut of theoretical positioning and empirical explications that engage with situated local knowledges, spaces and places, alongside the intensive structural political and institutional negotiations of sovereignty, settler colonial nation-state power and its everyday embodied negotiations for First Peoples living with disability. This broad scoping of the special edition henceforth, hopes to reconcile the divergent global representations that are occurring within specific historical, political and geographic contexts, without the privileging or dominance of a particular standpoint.

Defining "indigeneity" has recently been approached with renewed vigor. While the field can involve quite passionate commitment to advocacy among scholars, theoretical clarity is needed in understanding just who might be thought of as indigenous, and the

Defining "indigeneity" has recently been approached with renewed vigor. While the field can involve quite passionate commitment to advocacy among scholars, theoretical clarity is needed in understanding just who might be thought of as indigenous, and the

This article critiques the shift towards valorizing indigeneity in western thought and contemporary practice. This shift in approach to indigenous ways of knowing and being, historically derided under conditions of colonialism, is a reflection of the "ontological turn" in anthropology. Rather than seeing indigenous peoples as having an inferior or different understanding of the world to a modernist one, the ontological turn suggests that their importance lies in the fact that they constitute different worlds and "world" in a performatively different way. The radical promise this view holds is that a different world already exists in potentia, the access to which is a question of ontology—of being differently: 'being in being' rather than thinking, acting and world-making as if we were transcendent or "possessive" modern subjects. We argue that the ontopolitical arguments for the superiority of indigenous ways of being should not be seen as radical or emancipatory resistances to modernist or colonial epistemological and ontological legacies but rather as a new form of neoliberal governmentality, cynically manipulating critical, postcolonial and ecological sensibilities for its own ends. Thus, rather than "provincializing" dominant western hegemonic practices, such discourses of indigeneity extend them, instituting new forms of governing through calls for adaptation and resilience.

This dissertation studies indigenous peoples in international politics, particularly in the United Nations (UN). Indigenous peoples gained access to the organisation on a permanent basis with the establishment of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PF). In addition, their rights are increasingly recognised by the UN member states, the most notable advance in this regard being the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This progress has taken place in a state-based system, many of whose members have colonised indigenous peoples and at least previously been hostile to their demands. Indeed, it is this paradox, and my interest in how the change has come about that provided the impetus for the research project. Despite these advances in indigenous participation and rights, I argue that there is no less power exercised over the peoples than previously. I approach the agency of indigenous peoples from two perspectives, that of norm socialisation and that of Foucault-inspired approaches to power and governmentality. The first perspective views indigenous peoples as norm entrepreneurs. It identifies frames through which the peoples draw attention to their concerns and suggest solutions; that is, the peoples promote the acceptance of new norms by states. The latter perspective informed three analyses. In the first, I investigated the ways in which the subjectification and resistance of indigenous peoples takes place in the small-scale power relations of the PF. The second consisted of a critical examination of the constant entanglement of indigeneity and the environment in international politics and its consequences for indigenous agency. The third examined the ways in which the prevailing and accepted discourse on indigenous rights has neoliberal power effects that go beyond the proclaimed emancipatory aims of the rights. The research material comprises observations made in four PF annual sessions; statements by representatives of indigenous peoples, states and UN agencies; reports on the establishment of the PF; and reports of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The study embraces the methodological guideline of problematisation: text analysis was applied to first identify recurrent and familiar perceptions of indigenous peoples and their agency; this then provided the basis for a critical examination of the power effects associated with the perceptions. The ultimate aim of the analysis was to recover the political in what often seems de-politicised, established and accepted in the context of indigenous peoples and international politics. This research breaks from the more conventional approaches to indigenous peoples and politics that conceive of the international institutional, political and legal advances in indigenous issues as self-evidently desirable and 'good'. Such approaches fail to recognise the 'darker' side of the seemingly benign processes involved: they overlook the many ways in which more hierarchical power relations persist. There is no denying that the ways in which indigenous peoples and indigeneity are dealt with in the UN foster indigeneity and its alleged qualities and recognise the freedoms and rights of the peoples. However, as my critical study illustrates, the growing recognition of indigenous rights and the enhanced participation of indigenous peoples signals a change in the ways in which indigenous peoples are best managed internationally, a development geared to ensuring the efficient functioning of neoliberal governance. Indeed, rather than the peoples being governed any less in international politics today, governance at work has taken on more subtle forms.

This article is based on indigenous research focusing on indigeneity and membership in indigenous group at the individual level. The position and rights of indigenous peoples gained a foothold at the political arenas of the world and in international agreements since the turn of the 1990s when indigenous peoples and minorities were started to be distinguished from each other. Indigenous peoples were considered to have collective rights regarding control over certain areas colonized by the mainstream population at a certain point of history. The aim is first to review the different membership criteria within different Indigenous groups in the world, and then to emphasize the definition of Sámi in Finland and its individual-level challenges. As a result of this paper, it seems that the individual-level indigenous identity does not necessarily correspond with the membership in indigenous group. When indigenous identity is not being accepted for one reason or another it violates the international declarations for indigenous peoples and may cause challenges both at individual and societal levels within indigenous communities.

Amid and unpredictable change globally, indigenous peoples are frequently referred to as prime examples of resilience. The peoples' proven track record of persevering and ability to adapt have attracted attention worldwide. Previously deemed in need of 'development', the peoples are being called upon to provide what is now an invaluable contribution. Resilience holds out a promise of a (better) future for us all, and for the peoples suggests a greater role in impacting the future. This article dissects the promise of change engendered through the call for indigenous resilience. By drawing on critical discussions on adaptation, indigeneity and contemporary colonialism, it offers an account of the ways in which resilience cements time-tried expectations that indigenous peoples always adapt. Even though the international community would have us believe that colonial practices are a thing of the past, this article argues that the global call for indigenous resilience signals a resurgence of those practices.

This article critiques the shift towards valorizing indigeneity in western thought and contemporary practice. This shift in approach to indigenous ways of knowing and being, historically derided under conditions of colonialism, is a reflection of the 'ontological turn' in anthropology. Rather than indigenous peoples simply having an inferior or different understanding of the world to a modernist one, the 'ontological turn' suggests their importance is that they constitute different worlds, and that they 'world' in a performatively different way. The radical promise is that a different world already exists in potentia and that access to this alternative world is a question of ontology - of being differently: being in being rather than thinking, acting and 'worlding' as if we were transcendent or 'possessive' subjects. We argue that ontopolitical arguments for the superiority of indigenous ways of being should not be seen as radical or emancipatory resistances to modernist or colonial epistemological and ontological legacies but instead as a new form of neoliberal governmentality, cynically manipulating critical, postcolonial and ecological sensibilities for its own ends. Rather than 'provincialising' dominant western hegemonic practices, discourses of 'indigeneity' are functioning to extend them, instituting new forms of governing through calls for adaptation and resilience.

Racial conceptions pervaded modern colonial regimes of power throughout Southeast Asia. Scholars working today on colonial histories in this region would hardly contest this statement. European imperial expansionism and European racial imaginaries are each part of the same political field; they share a common history and as such they should be examined together. In this vein, in recent decades there has been increasing interest in how the production and circulation of race constructs—whether evocative of purity or mixture, of an elusive whiteness, or of primitive aboriginality/ies, for example—might frame, even construct, colonial and national regimes of power. In particular, scholarly interest has been growing in the historical study of the so-called racial sciences, a plastic designation under which one may encompass a variety of selfproclaimed scientific knowledge practices—from medicine to (physical) anthropology, the nineteenth-century science of race par excellence ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

How do videos, movies and documentaries dedicated to indigenous communities transform the media landscape of South Asia? Based on extensive original research, this book examines how in South Asia popular music videos, activist political clips, movies and documentaries about, by and for indigenous communities take on radically new significances. Media, Indigeneity and Nation in South Asia shows how in the portrayal of indigenous groups by both 'insiders' and 'outsiders' imaginations of indigeneity and nation become increasingly interlinked. Indigenous groups, typically marginal to the nation, are at the same time part of mainstream polities and cultures. Drawing on perspectives from media studies and visual anthropology, this book compares and contrasts the situation in South Asia with indigeneity globally.