Indigeneity on the Move. Группа авторов
Ann Arbour, MI: Association of Asian Studies.
Baviskar, Amita. 2006. “The Politics of Being ‘Indigenous’.” In Indigeneity in India, ed. Bengt G. Karlsson and Tanka B. Subba, 33–50. London: Kegan Paul.
Béteille, André. 1998. “The Idea of Indigenous People.” Current Anthropology 39(2): 187–92.
Bhaumik, Subir. 2009. Troubled Periphery: The Crisis of India’s North East. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Chandra, Uday. 2013. “Beyond Subalternity: Land, Community, and the State in Contemporary Jharkhand.” Contemporary South Asia 21(1): 52–61.
Conklin, B.A. and L.R. Graham. 1995. “The Shifting Middle Ground: Amazonian Indians and Eco-Politics.” American Anthropologist 97(4): 695–710.
de Maaker, Erik. 2012. “Negotiations at Death: Assessing Gifts, Mothers and Marriages.” In Negotiating Rites, ed. Ute Hüsken and Frank Neubert, 43–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2013a. “Performing the Garo Nation? Garo Wangala Dancing between Faith and Folklore.” Asian Ethnology 72(2): 221–39.
———. 2013b. “Have the Mitdes Gone Silent? Conversion, Rhetoric, and the Continuing Importance of the Lower Deities in Northeast India.” In Asia in the Making of Christianity: Conversion, Agency, and Indigeneity, 1600s to the Present, eds. Richard F. Young and Jonathan A. Seitz, 135–162. Leiden: Brill.
Dove, Michael R. 2006. “Indigenous People and Environmental Politics.” Annual Review of Anthropology 35: 191–208.
Fernandes, Walter. 2005. “North Eastern India: Land, Identity and Conflicts.” Paper presented at the Silver Jubilee Lecture, 26 August 2004. Allahabad: GB Pant Institute of Social Sciences.
Havemann, P. 1999. Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Hindu. 2013. “The Significance of Niyamgiri.” Retrieved 7 January 2015 from http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/the-significance-of-niyamgiri/article4677438.ece.
Ingold, Tim. 2011. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Abingdon: Routledge.
Karlsson, Bengt. 2003. “Anthropology and the ‘Indigenous Slot’: Claims to and Debates about Indigenous Peoples’ Status in India.” Critique of Anthropology 23(4): 403–23.
———. 2006. “Indigenous Natures: Forest and Community Dynamics in Meghalaya, North-East India.” In Ecological Nationalisms: Nature, Livelihoods, And Identities in South Asia, ed. Gunnel Cederlöf and K. Sivaramakrishnan, 170–198. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
———. 2011. Unruly Hills: A Political Ecology of India’s Northeast. New York: Berghahn Books.
Kuper, Adam. 2003. “The Return of the Native.” Current Anthropology 44(3): 389–402.
Ministry of Tribal Affairs (ed.). 2006. National Tribal Policy (draft). New Delhi: Ministry of Tribal Affairs.
Misra, Sanghamitra. 2011. Becoming a Borderland: The Politics of Space and Identity in Colonial Northeastern India. New Delhi: Routledge.
Murray Li, Tania. 2010. “Indigeneity, Capitalism, and the Management of Dispossession.” Current Anthropology 51(3): 385–414.
Rycroft, Daniel J. and Sangeeta Dasgupta (eds). 2011. The Politics of Belonging in India: Becoming Adivasi. Abingdon: Routledge.
Sangma, Balsa B. 2008. “The Alienation of Land among the Garos.” In Land, People and Politics: Contest Over Tribal Land in Northeast India, ed. Walter Fernandes and Sanjay Barbora (eds), Land, People and Politics: Contest over Tribal Land in Northeast India, 53–57. Guwahati: North Eastern Social Research Centre.
Scott, J. 2009. The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Shah, A. 2010. In the Shadows of the State: Indigenous Politics, Environmentalism, and Insurgency in Jharkhand, India. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.
Survival International (ed.). 2014. We’ll Lose Our Soul. Niyamgiri Is Our Soul. Retrieved 11 December 2014 from http://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/dongria.
United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. n.d. “Factsheet: Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous Voices.” Retrieved 7 January 2015 from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf.
Vandekerckhove, N. 2009. “We are Sons of this Soil: The Dangers of Homeland Politics in India’s Northeast.” Critical Asian Studies 41(4): 523–548.
Xaxa, Virginius. 2008. State, Society, and Tribes: Issues in Post-colonial India. New Delhi: Dorling Kindersley.
2
CONSIDERING THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONCEPT OF INDIGENEITY FOR LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN CAMBODIA, THAILAND, AND LAOS
Ian G. Baird
The concept of “indigenous peoples”—which is today often linked to emancipatory support for ethnic minorities—is relatively new to Asia. Of course, the word “indigenous” has been used in Asia by Europeans since at least the nineteenth-century European colonial period, but during that time it was used to distinguish between colonial Europeans and colonized “natives,” regardless of ethnic background. In other words, it was an Othering tool of European colonialism, deployed in the defense of colonial power. For example, the British in Burma used the term “indigenous” to distinguish the British from Britain from colonial subjects (Keyes 2002). In French Indochina, the Garde Indigène (Indigenous Guard), a military unit made up of people of Asian descent, was specifically employed to help protect colonial power (Baird 2015). The United States government similarly applied the concept of “indigenous” during the postcolonial period, and in 1975—as the communists were taking over Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam—Americans working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) were ordered to assist with the evacuation of “Key Indigenous Personnel.”1 The CIA in Cambodia also referred to all Cambodians as “indigenous” during the same period (Conboy 2013). In both of these examples it was citizenship, rather than ethnicity, that was the focus. But since the 1980s and 1990s, some Asians have begun to adopt a new concept of indigeneity, one previously largely restricted to the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand. This new concept is fundamentally different to those previously used. First, it recognizes and identifies groups based on ethnic difference, not on their country of origin. Second, it is based on self-determination (at least at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues),2 something that was not previously the case (see ILO 1989). Third, in Asia it is now frequently associated with those who have historically been “colonized people” (Baird 2008, 2011b; Erni 2008; Gray 1995). It is also a term that is becoming globalized (Dirlik 2003); thus, the concept of indigenous peoples is being exported to various parts of the world, including Southeast Asia. It is becoming increasingly translocal, with intensely global and local elements, hybridized in particular ways depending on the context (Baird 2015). These new meanings of indigenous peoples make it possible for even relatively recent migrants to cross present-day national borders and claim to be indigenous, especially if they were historically dominated or oppressed by those in neighboring countries. It allows for “indigeneity without borders.” For example, the Hmong in Thailand and Laos, even though