Duane Champagne
6/1/14
The recent movie Cesar Chavez: History is Made One Step at a Time brings home differing strategies between minority groups and indigenous nations in their legal and political relat...
Steven Newcomb

When people these days discuss the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, they have no idea that 70 years ago, just before the end of World War II, such a document was already being envisioned....

5/14/14
Steven Newcomb

Dina Gilio-Whitaker’s column, “Moving from Sovereignty to Autonomy,” is troubling on a number of levels. She advocates that we use the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to achieve “autonomy” within the context of what she terms the “multinational state.” Unfortunately, her article lacks semantic depth and critical analysis, and serves to undermine the foundation of the movement by our Original Nations and Peoples of Great Turtle Island to liberate ourselves from established patterns of domination on the basis of true self-determination.

One problem is Gilio-Whitaker’s uncritical usage of the English language. That, along with failure to address the linguistic patterns of domination and subordination endemic to U.S. federal Indian law and policy, and international law, prevent readers from understanding the stakes and the importance of current international debates about the rights of peoples termed “indigenous.”

Current international working definitions reveal that “indigenous” in that context means “dominated peoples” and “peoples under dominance.” One definition, for example, says that “Indigenous populations are composed of existing descendants of the peoples who inhabited the territory or a country.” Then, “persons of a different culture or ethnic origin arrived from other parts of the world,” “overcame” the peoples living already there, “and, by conquest, settlement or other means, reduced them [those peoples] to a non-dominant or colonial situation.” In other words, the original peoples are considered to have been “reduced” to a predicament of domination. In her article, Gilio-Whitaker fails to make this background explicit.

Another international definition treats the words “indigenous” and “aboriginal” as synonymous. (See UN Centre for Human Rights, “The Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” 1990). The term “aboriginal” traces to “aborigine,” which, according to Webster’s unabridged dictionary, means “an indigenous inhabitant [a single person] of a country: one of the native people as distinguished from an invading or colonizing people.” Thus, peoples termed “Indigenous” or “aboriginal” are contrasted with present day dominating or domination-societies, typically called “states,” which are descended from the invading and colonizing peoples of Western Christendom.

Gilio-Whitaker’s column does not grasp a key point: We have to explicitly focus on the above framework of domination, and specifically use the word “domination,” in order to become conscious of the ‘state of domination’ that has been forced on those nations and peoples the UN now calls “Indigenous.” Importantly, Gilio-Whitaker does not mention the history of colonial domination in her article. Her omission is not unique. In the strange unspoken code in the English language and international political discourse, “’domination’ is the name that shall not be spoken.”

It is within the above noted context of domination that Gilio-Whitaker’s use of the term “autonomy” is accurately understood. In the classic Greek sense, autonomy means “the quality of state of being independent, free, and self-directing,” which is a powerful meaning for purposes of liberation. However, another meaning is, “the degree of self-determination or political control possessed by a minority group, territorial division, or political unit in its relation to the state or political community of which it forms a part.” (emphasis added)

The latter concept of “autonomy” is meaningful “in relation to” and “inside” the context of “the state.” It envisions “indigenous” units of “autonomy,” or “minority groups of autonomy,” considered to form “a part of the state,” which is a system of domination. In this sense, then, autonomy is considered to be a form of political assimilation whereby originally free nations and peoples which are now considered to be existing under, and subject to the authority of, some state dominance. They are deemed to have been made a part of, or politically incorporated into the body politic of “the state.” This version of “autonomy” is completely consistent with the racist and Christian-premised pronouncements of the US Supreme Court in the areas of “domestic dependency,” “and “plenary power. ”...

3/23/14
Steven Newcomb

This article is written in anticipation of the U.S. Department of State’s plan to convene a “listening session” this fall with American Indian leaders. The meeting, which will be held at the U.S. Department of the Interior Building in Washington, will focus on two matters....

8/6/13
Peter d'Errico

Human rights and self-determination are hot issues as nations debate the application of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Is the Declaration a revolutionary challenge to the colonial system that dominates Indigenous peoples?...

8/1/13
Gale Courey Toensing
7/29/13
When Penobscot Indian Nation leaders heard on July 17 that the South Carolina Supreme Court had ordered three-year-old Veronica Brown, a Cherokee citizen, removed from the care of ...
Steven Newcomb

In the foreword to Walter Echohawk’s book In the Light of Justice (Fulcrum 2013), S....

6/26/13
Steven Newcomb

There was a deeply troubling development at this year’s United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (the 12th Session) in New York. Before we get into that, though, let’s first build some historical context....

6/5/13
Gale Courey Toensing
1/24/13
A new and legally binding international treaty to reduce harmful emissions of mercury was adopted by more than 140 states at the 5 th International Negotiating Committee session at...

Pages