Diaz, V. 2006. "Creolization and Indigeneity." American Ethnologist 2/3 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Indo-Caribbean Indenture: Resistance And Accommodation, 1838-1920
2006
This broad and provocative collection of essays has an ambitious goalto systematize the history of past human interactions with the environment, to understand our environmental future better. It is hard to imagine a larger task. The thirty-four contributors seek to craft a "fully integrated history of humans and the rest of nature" (4). These essays are the ªrst steps of the larger project, called the Integrated History and Future of People on Earth (ihope). Theirs is not a purely academic exercise. The contributors hope to produce a practical model (or a series of practical models). The data include knowledge of such events as the rise and fall of the Roman and Mayan Empires, the historical impacts of El Niño, twentieth-century geopolitics, and so on. The resulting models will enable predictions about such diverse phenomena as land-use patterns, ecosystem dynamics, and climate shifts. Should accurate predictions appear too tough a proposition, the volume editors are comfortable instead with the expectation that "IHOPE can use a deeper understanding of the past to help us create a better future, rather than to predict the future" (14). The volume is divided into ªve parts. The ªrst introduces the volume and discusses methodology. The following parts attempt to integrate history and nature within four time frames-the millennial (up to 10,000 years ago), the centennial (up to 1,000 years ago), the decadal (up to 100 years ago), and the future. Each of the last four parts contains three-to-ªve topically focused essays, as well as a longer "group report" that draws larger conclusions and relates the lessons of each time scale to the ihope project. This project reveals interdisciplinarity at its best and worst. The authors come from a wide variety of ªelds-economics, anthropology, climatology, resource management, and a host of others. Almost all of the contributors take approaches derived from the social and natural sciences; only two or three humanistic perspectives are represented. One of the greatest challenges facing the ihope project is the difªculty of bridging disciplinary divides, especially in the assessment of data. How might someone assess-for modeling purposes-the information drawn from pollen sediments, archeological sites, and written documents? More generally, how can human social processes like land-use patterns or information ºows be integrated with such quantiªable natural processes as soil erosion or greenhouse-gas concentration? Costanza suggests a system for "grading" data as a place to start. The volume makes its greatest contribution to interdisciplinary history in answering these types of questions. Some of the essays are dense, jargon-laden, and hard to follow. But the authors are asking important, hard questions, and their answers to these questions are nearly always provocative. ihope is certainly a wor-Reviews man and Nazi genocide, Japanese atrocities in East Asia, Soviet terror, Maoism in China, and mass killing in Cambodia and Rwanda. An epilogue slips in the cases of Bangladesh, East Timor, Guatemala, Iraq, Bosnia, the Sudan, and al-Qaeda. Kiernan closes by reasserting the generality of his four themes in mass killing, which after 600 pages have mutated into "race, antiquity, agriculture, and expansion" (605). He leaves the logical status of the four themes unclear. Are they necessary conditions for mass killing, jointly sufªcient conditions for mass killing, separate elements that independently increase the probability of mass killing, or simply characteristics that frequently accompany mass killing? The book neither identiªes systematic variations in genocide from time to time or place to place that require explanation nor proposes explanations for change, variation, and continuity in genocide. Its exclusive concentration on genocidal attempts that produced massive deaths deprives us of the opportunity to learn under what conditions popular resistance or third-party intervention prevented or mitigated massacres. Its descriptions, furthermore, concentrate overwhelmingly on ideologies and actions of perpetrators rather than on analyzing victims' responses or interactions between perpetrators and victims. Kiernan's forty-three-page treatment of English killing in Ireland between 1565 and 1603, for example, portrays Shane O'Neill as a rebel against English rule but neither as a military contender for the earldom of Tyrone nor as the Irish lord who accepted Queen Elizabeth's support in his bid to head the O'Neill clan. Such are the perils of universalizing history.
Indigeneity and Indigenous Politics: Ground-breaking Resources
Revista de Estudios Sociales, 2023
The purpose of this article is to relate the very important question of the autonomy of indigenous peoples to freely make decisions about their life with the notion of indigeneity, reconceptualised as a socially constructed and deeply contested resource. Resources are more than mere static assets or quantities of matter waiting to be measured, explored or protected. Something becomes a resource through joint processes of quantification, valuation, and normalisation. Along these lines, indigeneity is not just the ascertainment of something or someone in relation to ‘somewhat else’, but a nexus of indigenous peoples’ self-realisation and political intervention. To be indigenous is to exist politically in space and in relation to antagonist forces and processes that constantly downgrade their ethnic and social condition. Indigeneity is, thus, a resource that presupposes the value and the fight for their rights and for other (so-called) indigenous resources found in their lands. The main contribution here is the claim that indigeneity is a ground-breaking resource and a reaction formulated in the interstices of the old and new machineries of market-oriented coloniality. Indigeneity is reinterpreted as a special, highly politicised resource that directly and indirectly opposes processes of world grabbing and the appropriation of other territorialised resources from indigenous areas. It is concluded that indigeneity, as a resourceful resource, has become a key factor in the process of external and internal recognition, which galvanises political mobilisation and instigates novel forms of interaction. What makes indigenous peoples more and more unique is also what makes them share a socio-political struggle with allied, subaltern social groups. ----- El propósito de este artículo es relacionar la importante cuestión de la autonomía de los pueblos indígenas, en términos de tomar decisiones sobre su vida libremente, con la noción de indigeneidad, reconceptualizada como un recurso socialmente construido y profundamente cuestionado. Los recursos son más que simples activos estáticos o cantidades de materia a la espera de ser medidos, explorados o protegidos. Algo se convierte en recurso a través de procesos conjuntos de cuantificación, valoración y normalización. En este orden de ideas, indigeneidad no es solo la constatación de algo o alguien en relación con “algo más”, sino un nexo de autorrealización e intervención política de los pueblos indígenas. Ser indígena es existir políticamente en el espacio y vinculado con fuerzas y procesos antagonistas que degradan constantemente la condición étnica y social. Por lo tanto, la indigeneidad es un recurso que presupone el valor y la lucha por los derechos y por otros recursos (llamados) indígenas que se encuentran en sus tierras. La principal contribución de este artículo es la afirmación de que la indigeneidad es un recurso innovador y una reacción formulada en los intersticios de las viejas y nuevas maquinarias de la colonialidad orientada al mercado. Se reinterpreta como especial y altamente politizado, y opuesto directa e indirectamente a los procesos de acaparamiento del mundo y a la apropiación de otros recursos territorializados de las zonas indígenas. Se concluye que la indigeneidad, como recurso innovador, se ha convertido en un factor clave en el proceso de reconocimiento externo e interno, que galvaniza la movilización política y propicia formas novedosas de interacción. Lo que hace que los pueblos indígenas sean cada vez más únicos es también lo que los hace compartir una lucha sociopolítica con grupos sociales aliados y subalternos. ----- O objetivo deste artigo é relacionar a importante questão da autonomia dos povos indígenas, em termos de tomar livremente decisões sobre sua vida, com a noção de indigeneidade, reconceituada como um recurso socialmente construído e profundamente questionado. Os recursos são mais do que simples ativos estáticos ou quantidades de matéria à espera de ser avaliados, explorados ou protegidos. Algo se converte em recurso por meio de processos conjuntos de quantificação, valorização e normalização. Nessa ordem de ideias, indigeneidade não é somente a constatação de algo ou alguém com relação a “algo mais”, mas também de autorrealização e intervenção política dos povos indígenas. Ser indígena é existir politicamente no espaço e vinculado com forças e processos antagonistas que degradam constantemente a condição ética e social. Portanto, a indigeneidade é um recurso que pressupõe o valor e a luta pelos direitos e por outros recursos (chamados) indígenas que se encontram em suas terras. A principal contribuição deste artigo é a afirmação de que a indigeneidade é um recurso inovador e uma reação formulada nos interstícios das velhas e novas maquinarias da colonialidade orientada ao mercado. É reinterpretado como especial e altamente politizado, e oposto direta e indiretamente aos processos de acumulação do mundo e à apropriação de outros recursos territorializados das áreas indígenas. Conclui-se que a indigeneidade, como recurso inovador, é convertido em um fator-chave no processo de reconhecimento externo e interno, que estimula a mobilização política e propicia novas formas de interação. O que faz com que os povos indígenas sejam cada vez mais únicos é também o que os faz compartilhar uma luta sociopolítica com grupos sociais aliados e subalternos.
Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 2008
This broad and provocative collection of essays has an ambitious goalto systematize the history of past human interactions with the environment, to understand our environmental future better. It is hard to imagine a larger task. The thirty-four contributors seek to craft a "fully integrated history of humans and the rest of nature" (4). These essays are the ªrst steps of the larger project, called the Integrated History and Future of People on Earth (ihope). Theirs is not a purely academic exercise. The contributors hope to produce a practical model (or a series of practical models). The data include knowledge of such events as the rise and fall of the Roman and Mayan Empires, the historical impacts of El Niño, twentieth-century geopolitics, and so on. The resulting models will enable predictions about such diverse phenomena as land-use patterns, ecosystem dynamics, and climate shifts. Should accurate predictions appear too tough a proposition, the volume editors are comfortable instead with the expectation that "IHOPE can use a deeper understanding of the past to help us create a better future, rather than to predict the future" (14). The volume is divided into ªve parts. The ªrst introduces the volume and discusses methodology. The following parts attempt to integrate history and nature within four time frames-the millennial (up to 10,000 years ago), the centennial (up to 1,000 years ago), the decadal (up to 100 years ago), and the future. Each of the last four parts contains three-to-ªve topically focused essays, as well as a longer "group report" that draws larger conclusions and relates the lessons of each time scale to the ihope project. This project reveals interdisciplinarity at its best and worst. The authors come from a wide variety of ªelds-economics, anthropology, climatology, resource management, and a host of others. Almost all of the contributors take approaches derived from the social and natural sciences; only two or three humanistic perspectives are represented. One of the greatest challenges facing the ihope project is the difªculty of bridging disciplinary divides, especially in the assessment of data. How might someone assess-for modeling purposes-the information drawn from pollen sediments, archeological sites, and written documents? More generally, how can human social processes like land-use patterns or information ºows be integrated with such quantiªable natural processes as soil erosion or greenhouse-gas concentration? Costanza suggests a system for "grading" data as a place to start. The volume makes its greatest contribution to interdisciplinary history in answering these types of questions. Some of the essays are dense, jargon-laden, and hard to follow. But the authors are asking important, hard questions, and their answers to these questions are nearly always provocative. ihope is certainly a wor-Reviews man and Nazi genocide, Japanese atrocities in East Asia, Soviet terror, Maoism in China, and mass killing in Cambodia and Rwanda. An epilogue slips in the cases of Bangladesh, East Timor, Guatemala, Iraq, Bosnia, the Sudan, and al-Qaeda. Kiernan closes by reasserting the generality of his four themes in mass killing, which after 600 pages have mutated into "race, antiquity, agriculture, and expansion" (605). He leaves the logical status of the four themes unclear. Are they necessary conditions for mass killing, jointly sufªcient conditions for mass killing, separate elements that independently increase the probability of mass killing, or simply characteristics that frequently accompany mass killing? The book neither identiªes systematic variations in genocide from time to time or place to place that require explanation nor proposes explanations for change, variation, and continuity in genocide. Its exclusive concentration on genocidal attempts that produced massive deaths deprives us of the opportunity to learn under what conditions popular resistance or third-party intervention prevented or mitigated massacres. Its descriptions, furthermore, concentrate overwhelmingly on ideologies and actions of perpetrators rather than on analyzing victims' responses or interactions between perpetrators and victims. Kiernan's forty-three-page treatment of English killing in Ireland between 1565 and 1603, for example, portrays Shane O'Neill as a rebel against English rule but neither as a military contender for the earldom of Tyrone nor as the Irish lord who accepted Queen Elizabeth's support in his bid to head the O'Neill clan. Such are the perils of universalizing history.