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.      

Summary of Recent Theories Of Nationalism

Recent Theories Of Nationalism

This paper discusses the various theories about nationalism, and the contribution of prominent authors in each,

1.      PRIMORDIAL AND SOCIOBIOLOGICAL THEORIES

Primordial theories explain nationalism as being a natural phenomenon which results from centuries of bonding between families. According to Shils and Greetz it cannot be explained by social interaction since it is essentially a sentiment or feeling. Thus a basic group identity, which includes physical body, name, language, religion, history, nationality, geographical location and culture, is present in individuals, according to Isaacs.

The sociobiological perspective emphasizes the evolutionary significance of nationalism or forming an ethnic group identity. Three principles discussed by Van den Berghe, selection of kin, reciprocity and coercion, explain how the forming of ethnic groups is in a way a broader generalization of forming kinship ties. There are intermediate institutions like extended family etc. but overall the concept of inclusive fitness explains why we form ethnic groups. Another text by Reynolds discussed the factors that led to group formation, and in-group out-group behavior. The most comprehensive model was however given by Shaw and Wang, who in a series of hypotheses explain the process of identification with a group. The main purpose is balance of power concerns, and whether voluntarily or through coercion humans form ties of loyalty to larger groups or nations. This identification is strong in homogenous nations, and ambiguous in heterogeneous ones. Therefore this perspective while focusing on our innate tendencies also considers modern ways of forming group ties.

2.      INSTRUMENTALIST THEORIES

These theories emphasize the instrumental value of forming an ethnic group. Therefore groups maybe formed for political, economic, or social reasons in order to maximize benefit. According to Barth, these groups are not primordial; in fact there boundaries are consciously defined as is their culture. These theories focus on four levels of analysis, micro, median, macro and more recently global. Two other approaches are the competition theories, which suggest that competition over scarce resources is the factor behind group formation, and rational choice theories, which suggest that individuals choose which group to identify with. 

3.      MODERNIZATION THEORIES

These theories share the same ideological roots which emerged after the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods. Industrialization led to many changes such as urbanization, commercialization and secularization in society and as a result the nature of nationalistic ties also changed. These are further classifies into social communication, economic and politico-ideological theories.

Social communication theories focused on the communication within a group. The stronger the symbolic and linguistic ties between members, the better communication would be. This would result in strong group affiliation, as members would be able to share ideas etc. The introduction of print media further highlighted the importance of strong communication.

Economistic theories can be further divided on whether they were inspired by Marx or not. Those inspired by Marx (Classical, internal colonialism, uneven development, world system and Hroch0 explain nationalism as a result of class difference. When the upper or core class takes n the main roles in a society, peripheral classes are forced to form groups of their own. Thus ethnicity is simply a way of maintaining the status quo. Gellner’s theory which is not inspired by Marx proposes that this class difference is not due to economic factors but rather a difference in language and education among classes.

Politico-ideological theories refuse to accept the reductionist view of the economic theorists and propose that political ideology, military forces and psychological factors also result in nationalism.     

4.      EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES     

The evolutionary theories do not accept the idea that nationalism is a purely modern concept resulting from Industrialization. Nationalism has always existed, even in medieval times, and the best explanation we can give for the differences between past and present is that it was ‘recreated’ as a result of major world events. These events include the French and American Revolutions and the two world wars, which changed the political ideology of the world and thus a new form of nationalism emerged.

Conclusion

A sound theory of nationalism should explain its genesis and evolution, give a spatio-temporal explanation of its various ideologies and finally an understanding of the collective feelings or sentiments attached with it. So far social science has managed only the first two aspects and that too with many flaws. Therefore further study and research is needed.

      

Ethnicity an Introduction

Using the word ‘ethnic’ is not just a fad in anthropology; it represents a shift in both theoretical and empirical perspectives. Awareness of ethnic groups can be seen among old researches, but the word itself came into focus after the 1970s. This might be because of two major reasons. First, the unit problem in identifying groups has always been an issue. Whether the labeling of a group should be done ‘objectively’ by outsiders according to certain criteria, or whether it should be done ‘subjectively’ by the group members themselves according to their loyalty or sense of unity, is difficult to resolve. With ‘ethnicity’ both these perspectives are focused. The second problem is that of the context in which a group is labeled. Previously the word ‘tribe’ was used implying a barbaric group outside the Western domain. Since this imperial context has now changed, it is more appropriate to use the word ‘ethnic’ group.

The term ‘ethnicity’ has many definitions, based on geographical stratification as in sociology, and on cultural aspects as in anthropology. A summary of all the different descriptions in anthropology lead us to describe ethnicity as a set of cultural identifiers, which are passed on through generations, that determine the inclusiveness or exclusiveness of an individual in a certain group. Ethnicity is not stable and ethnic boundaries are not clear cut in many cases. Thus ethnicity may be continuously changing or multiple ethnicities may exist due to overlapping of borders.    

‘Situational ethnicity’ is also a term used, and it implies that the labeling of ethnic groups depends largely on the situation. An individual may be a member of more than one socio-cultural group, or the labeling may be done according to education, religion, geographical location etc. Thus the same individual can be labeled with different ethnicities in different situations.

The concept of ethnicity is a relative one, ethnics groups meaning nothing in the absence of other groups. The interaction between the different ethnicities is also an area of concern for anthropologists. The power relations between different groups may be equal or unequal, and in case the group interacts frequently the groups may be balanced or stratified. In case the groups are remote and have no direct interaction with each other, equal power results in fragmented relations and unequal power in indirect relations. The most researched relations are those which are unbalanced or stratified s they lead to prejudice and discrimination.

Ethnic relations may also be categorized in terms of geographical stratification. When a larger group has power it is called a dominant majority, when a small group has power the term used is a dominant elite. On the other hand when a large group has no power it is called a subjugated mass, and when a small group has no power it is a minority group. This categorization is controversial however, as social stratification and ethnicity might be independent of each other.

Another issue of importance which has been comparatively less researched is how an ethnic identity is actually formed. The traditional view is that when certain people live in close proximity and isolation from others, and share the same religious, political, economic and social interests, they are likely to identify with each other as an ethnic group. However if they do not have much in common, and in fact the boundary with other groups is not as well defined then this identity is not formed or is weak. This identity can be forced when a conflict arises between two or more groups and people of one area who share similar interests unite with each other. The role for effective leaders who can bring together a people under one common identity is important here. Finally, an ethnic identity is formed when people who may not live in a similar area, share the same history, roots, language and customs. They may feel a sense of identity even if they no longer live in close proximity.

The modern term for multiethnic societies is a ‘plural society’. However, if we acknowledge that even in the past there were no such things as ‘tribes’ which existed in total isolation, than this term is redundant. It simple describes the reality, which is that modern society comprises of many ethnicities, in relations with each other.  One drawback of this intermingling of ethnicity has been role confusion. When a person views himself as an individual, the result is corruption, illegal and immoral acts with no sense of accountability such as we face nowadays. When there is a strong ethnic identification people do not view themselves as individuals, rather they consider themselves part of a group. Thus their actions are also determined accordingly. Finally, ethnic groups today are starting to be acknowledged even by the legal system, as group rights are as important as individual rights.