Summary of Return Of The Native

Return Of The Native

The article by Kuper is basically a description of the efforts made by the United Nations, NGOs and national governments to restore the rights of the native or ‘indigenous’ people in North American and European countries. He starts with discussing the terminology used for such people who are considered to be the original dwellers of a land. Words like ‘primitive’, ‘nomadic’ and ‘hunting’ imply a certain lifestyle which may or may not be followed today. The word ‘native’ is not acceptable as it has a colonial connotation and when used in America is used with a capital.  Recently the word ‘indigenous’ has replaced these words and since it is considered scientific is used to avoid racism. Labels from native languages themselves are also used nowadays as they have meaning for the people themselves and are accepted.

The rights for indigenous people that have been recognized and enforced are briefly as follows

·         Indigenous peoples should be allowed to take part in the policy making that affects them and be a part of the decision making in developmental projects that concern them.

·         Indigenous people should be given back their ancestral lands which were forcefully taken from them by colonial governments.

·         The rights of indigenous peoples are not just the basic human rights but also cultural rights. They should be free to practice their culture and maintain their identity.

These rights are based on the assumption that people who are native to a land should enjoy special privilege and control over its resources as compared to immigrants. Furthermore these people represent a lifestyle that is original and thus the best. This second assumption is particularly favored by environmental activists who consider modern lifestyles to be damaging and encourage a return to the primitive ways of living.

The rest of the article discusses the problems of applying these rights in different North American and European countries, especially when it comes to giving back ancestral land, as it is difficult to differentiate between genuine and fake claims and allowing indigenous peoples to follow their hunting or nomadic lifestyles, as these are in great contrast with modern society. The cases of the Inuit and Bushmen, for example, have been discussed in detail.

  The second part of this paper consists of the comments of different scholars on Kuper’s article

·         Kelichi Omura says that even though the rights and need for empowerment of indigenous people have come into public awareness as Kuper says, yet the ideology on which this movement is based is essentialist, which actually widens the gap between different ethnic groups and increases friction among them. The solution to this is suggested based on Kuper’s observation that even though euro-American definitions of ‘indigenous’ people assume that there lifestyle is primitive and in harmony with nature, yet this is not the case in reality. As a result of socio-cultural changes, migration, mixing etc, the original lifestyles of these people no longer exist. Thus it s suggested by Omura that indigenous people should not be defined according to labels that are made for them; instead they should define their own indigenousness according to their changing traditions and culture.

·         Evie Plaice strongly supports Kuper’s view that rights which are based on racial or ethnic basis are actually in violation of human equality. Giving indigenous people privileges simply because they are native dwellers is not just or practical as shown with the help of numerous cases. The position of anthropology in this debate is discussed by Plaice. Even though the discipline supports cultural diversity, it also supports the commonality between all humans and strives to maintain a balance between the two. This is a sensitive issue and in the hands of a racist government with ulterior motives the situation can be much exploited and a mess created like in Canada.    

·         Alicida Ray Ramos has strongly criticized Kuper’s paper on the grounds that it makes general statements against indigenous people and their movement. According to her Kuper claims that rights claimed on the basis of race are not fair, and most of the so called indigenous people are ‘fake’ and ‘land grabbers’. This undermines the people who genuinely have a claim and are fighting for their rights. Similarly Kuper has criticized all NGOs working for this movement without considering that his statement does not take into consideration the genuine efforts of some organizations.

·         Steven Robins has also criticized this paper and argues that Kuper’s expectation that indigenous people can only be considered genuine if they follow a primitive lifestyle resembling the Stone Age and out of touch with modern society is unbelievable. We cannot expect that indigenous people will not be in contact with modern society, and the fact that they are is not enough justification to claim that they are fake and there movement for rights is without base.

·         The last comment by James Suzman is in strong support of Kuper’s view that simply being indigenous is a racist and unjustified claim to special rights. However, as minorities who are marginalized and impoverished it is their right to demand chances of bettering their lives. This means that words like culture and identity, used by the activists are not actually the concern of the indigenous people themselves.

The paper ends with a reply from Kuper to all his colleagues who have expressed their opinion on his paper.