Who are "indigenous people"?

For most of us, this question brings to mind people whose skin is some shade of brown, and who live in natural/traditional ways that are markedly different than the ways of “civilization”. At least in the United States, the term “indigenous people” tends to be used as a racial category, along with “Asian”, “Black/African-heritage” and “white”.

This is the way I usually hear the term “indigenous people” used--as if it's a racial category. Used this way, the term “indigenous people” becomes one more way that capitalism/racism/imperialism divides the world's peoples into categories, as if we have nothing of significance in common with one another. Yuck.

What does “indigenous” actually mean?

There seem to be various and conflicting meanings that have become attached to this word.

1. First, the etymology of the word.  The literal translation of the Latin roots of this word is “in-born person” or “born in a country, native”. Note that in this definition, you are “indigenous” of the place you are born, regardless of where your ancestors came from. Most countries seem to recognize this definition by granting “citizenship” to anyone born on the soil of that country.

2. Here's the Webster definition: “having originated in or being produced, growing, living or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment (as in "indigenous plants" or "indigenous culture")”. This one is vague. Are oranges indigenous to Florida? Well, they didn't develop in Florida and they weren't growing here until people from Spain brought them here. But according to Webster, if they grow here and live here, they're indigenous. Doesn't matter where your great-great-great-citrus grandparents came from (Asia). If you're an orange tree growing in Florida, you're indigenous. This is the same as meaning #1.

3. More commonly, when referring to a species or a human culture, “indigenous” means “developed in the place where it is living”. Hawaiians are the indigenous people of Hawaii because their culture developed there. Sabal palms are indigenous to the deep southeastern U.S. because they developed there. Tomatoes are indigenous to South America (yep) because they developed there. That's all pretty straight forward. But also different than the first two meanings above. By this definition the Seminole people in Oklahoma are not “indigenous people” because their culture developed in what is now called Florida and not where they are living now.

4. Then there's the meaning of “indigenous” that is basically a racial category, as I described above.

5. And finally, there's the way Thomas and I used the word in our first posting (below), which describes a way of living that is based on having a deep knowledge of and conscious relationship to the natural environment.

Confused yet? I think you'd have to be. Because while there is overlap in the meanings above, there's just no consistency in how this word is used.

In spite of these conflicting definitions of the word “indigenous”, one thing is clear: most of us who live in “civilization” do not identify as indigenous unless we can trace our ancestory to people who knew how to live in a very nature-centered and spiritual way that predates “civilization”.

If you think you're operative definition of “indigenous people” isn't fundamentally racial (#4), take a look at this guy:

Does he look indigenous to you? Of course not. He's a white guy. He looks like a guy who might give you a loan at a bank (if you look like him). Or someone who might pilot the commercial airliner that takes you from one city or another. Definitely not indigenous.  Right?







Ok, now take another look at him:

Super nice clothes, huh?

This man is most definitely an indigenous person. Even the UN recognizes him as such. He is Saami. His people are indigenous to parts of what are called Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. The Saami are indigenous--at least by every definition above except the racial definition.

This man and his Saami people are an oppressed minority in the countries they live in. Their natural, traditional, indigenous way of life is constantly threatened by the "civilized" people of Scandanavia. Sound familiar?  This is true to the extent that the Saami are widely seen as victims of racism in the countries where they live.  Yes, that is the word that is used over there.  The Saami are considered a racial minority.  The United Nations is supportive of talks between the Saami and Nordic governments on the topic of "Saami self-determination". 

In other words, these people are NOT seen as Norwegian, Swedish, or Finnish within the countries that they live, and they do not identify with these nationalities (more than they have to).

Ok, now are you confused?  I hope so.

I think most of us need to seriously rethink what an “indigenous person” is.

For most of my life, I've seen myself as a “non-indigenous” person. If you're reading this, there's a good chance you're in the same boat because I only know a few people who identify as indigenous. (Hi Marcie! Hi Thomas!) I've spent my whole life so far feeling I was “indigenous of nowhere”. That I'm not really from anywhere.  But I was born somewhere--a place called Urbana, Illinois. By the first few definitions above, I am indigenous of that city and state, and of the United States. Do I think of myself as “indigenous” of Urbana, Illinois? Of course not. Does anyone? I doubt it. Because the word “indigenous” has become so polluted by racism in the U.S.

My ancestors came mostly from Germany and Prussia. Not indigenous peoples, right? Well, who were the ancestors of these “Germans” and “Prussians” that I descend from, that lived a few thousand years ago in what is now called Europe? How did those ancestors of mine live? What did they believe?

Go to the “History of Germany” Wikipedia page and under “Pre-history” you find a pathetic few sentences that make very vague references to “Germanic and Celtic tribes” that lived in what is now called Germany. By the way, "Germany" got its name from Julius Caesar, who dubbed it "Germania" right before he and his troops built a bridge across the Rhein from Gaul (now France) so he could conquer those "Germanic" savages.  Does it seem strange to you--as it does to me--to refer to these tribes as “Germanic” when that term was first used by the emperor who intended to conquer and "civilize" them? Were they nobody before Caesar "discovered" and named them? Who were they? Who did they think they were?

Of course my ancestors were tribal, indigenous people who lived in tribal, indigenous ways in those lands where their ancestors had been for thousands more years. We all descend from indigenous people. It is the heritage of all of us to be from a people who knew how to live very naturally and spiritually in a particular place. You may be “exotic” to the specific place you live now, but your ancestors and there culture are most definitely indigenous to some specific place. Guaranteed.

And we are all indigenous to this planet we call Earth.  Our species developed here on this planet over billions of years.  You and I and all of us belong here on this planet.  This is a very deep and significant fact of who all of us are.

Why don't people of “European heritage” tend to see themselves as “indigenous”? That question probably warrants a whole other article about the internalized effects of empires and “civilization” that have lingered for a few millenia now in the minds “European heritage” people, who generally seem to pretend that they and their ancestors have always been "civilized". (“Europe”, by the way, is the westernmost vestige of the Eurasian continent. Look at the map below and try to figure out where Asia ends and Europe begins.)

The questions that I think are even more critical to ask are:

1. What are the consequences of not seeing ourselves as “indigenous” of somewhere (even if using the liberal meanings # 1 and 2)?

2. What are the consequences of seeing “indigenousness” as a race? And,

3. What are the consequences of not learning to be “indigenous” of a particular place (using meaning number 5 above)?

Take a good look at the state of the Earth's environment, and I think you have the answer to all three of these questions.

Devastating.

Why bother really taking care of where you live if you're not really of or from (read "indigenous to") anywhere? Is where you live getting trashed? Not you're problem! You're not really from their anyway!

Hopefully this essay leaves you with more of an idea of why we've begun to refer to the village we envision as “neo-indigenous”. And why we believe this type of village is so important for both the health of the planet, and the times we live in.