scholarly journals Collaboration and discord in international debates about coca chewing, 1949–1950

Author(s):  
Adam Warren

This essay complicates our thinking about unequal North-South ‘collaborations’ by considering how distinct scientific traditions, national politics, forms of racial thinking, and conditions of internal colonialism in the global South shape relations with individuals and entities based in the global North. It does this by examining conflicts between Peruvian scientists and the United Nations’ Commission for the Study of the Coca Leaf, which visited Peru and Bolivia in 1949 to investigate the health effects of coca consumption on highland Indigenous populations. Sent at the Peruvian government’s invitation, commission members saw themselves as conducting a field survey. However, they quickly found themselves embroiled in conflict with a Peruvian high-altitude physiologist, Carlos Monge, who sought long-term, laboratory-based collaboration. Monge’s scholarship and experiments proved controversial for UN authorities because they emphasized the racial alterity of highland Indigenous peoples even as he and his peers disagreed about the health effects of coca chewing.

Author(s):  
Cynthia M. Beall ◽  
Kingman P. Strohl

Biological anthropologists aim to explain the hows and whys of human biological variation using the concepts of evolution and adaptation. High-altitude environments provide informative natural laboratories with the unique stress of hypobaric hypoxia, which is less than usual oxygen in the ambient air arising from lower barometric pressure. Indigenous populations have adapted biologically to their extreme environment with acclimatization, developmental adaptation, and genetic adaptation. People have used the East African and Tibetan Plateaus above 3,000 m for at least 30,000 years and the Andean Plateau for at least 12,000 years. Ancient DNA shows evidence that the ancestors of modern highlanders have used all three high-altitude areas for at least 3,000 years. It is necessary to examine the differences in biological processes involved in oxygen exchange, transport, and use among these populations. Such an approach compares oxygen delivery traits reported for East African Amhara, Tibetans, and Andean highlanders with one another and with short-term visitors and long-term upward migrants in the early or later stages of acclimatization to hypoxia. Tibetan and Andean highlanders provide most of the data and differ quantitatively in biological characteristics. The best supported difference is the unelevated hemoglobin concentration of Tibetans and Amhara compared with Andean highlanders as well as short- and long-term upward migrants. Moreover, among Tibetans, several features of oxygen transfer and oxygen delivery resemble those of short-term acclimatization, while several features of Andean highlanders resemble the long-term responses. Genes and molecules of the oxygen homeostasis pathways contribute to some of the differences.


Author(s):  
Renee Sylvain

Moringe ole Parkipuny addressed the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (UNWGIP) in 1989 and, for the first time, opened up discussion of the idea that certain groups of hunter-gathers and pastoralists in Africa merited the status of indigenous peoples. Local activists and international organizations took up the cause in the following decades. Several international conferences resulted in new forms of activism, the reformulation of local identities, and a growing body of scholarship addressing African indigeneity. As NGOs built solidarity among relatively scattered groups of pastoralists and hunter-gatherers, often skeptical state governments initially resisted what they saw as demands for recognition of status and claims to “special rights.” Disagreements between state interests and newly organized indigenous groups were expressed at the United Nations during the process of adopting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP); but as the idea of indigeneity evolved through such discussions, African governments gradually came on board. International activism and work done by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights play significant roles in convincing African states to accept the concept of “indigenous peoples.” The issue of developing a definition of “indigenous peoples” appropriate for Africa remains unsettled and continues to present challenges. Mobilization among marginalized groups on the African continent itself, however, has presented NGOs, activists, states, and courts with the opportunity, through well-publicized struggles and several landmark legal cases, to refine the category to better fit with African contexts.


2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 245-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jérémie Gilbert

The definition and scope of indigenous peoples' human rights are usually contentious in the context of Africa.2While in recent years indigenous peoples' human rights have expanded immensely internationally, in Africa indigenous peoples' rights are still perceived to be in their infancy.3At the United Nations, the group of African States delayed the process that finally led to the adoption of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007 (UNDRIP).4At a national level, most of the States in Africa are still reluctant to recognize the specific rights of indigenous peoples.5Until recently, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Commission), the leading human rights institution for the continent,6had kept a low profile on the issue and had ‘not always interpreted indigenous peoples’ rights favourably'.7From this perspective Commission regarding the communication submitted by the indigenous Endorois community against Kenya casts new light on the rights of indigenous peoples in Africa.8The decision, which has already been hailed as a ‘landmark,’9touches on several crucial issues regarding the development of indigenous peoples' human rights in Africa. This groundbreaking decision did not materialize unexpectedly but is part of a wider evolution of the Commission regarding indigenous peoples' human rights in Africa. It echoes the work of the Commission's own Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations/Communities (Working Group) which was established in 2001 with the mandate to focus specifically on the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples in Africa.10The mandate of the Working Group is to examine the concept of indigenous communities in Africa, as well as to analyse their rights under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (African Charter).11In 2003 the Commission adopted the report of the Working Group which proposes several avenues for the recognition and promotion of indigenous rights in Africa.12The adoption of an Advisory Opinion by the Commission to support the adoption of UNDRIP marked another step toward the affirmation of indigenous peoples' rights in Africa.13The Advisory Opinion not only participated in unlocking the reluctance of the group of African States to adopt the UNDRIP, but also reflected developments taking place at the international level on the rights of indigenous peoples as well as their connection to the continent. Remarkably, in recent years, the Commission has started to refer to indigenous peoples' rights in its examination of States' periodic reports.14All these factors and the recent decision of the Commission in the Endorois case indicate the emergence of a consistent jurisprudence on indigenous peoples' rights in Africa.


Geography ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Merlan

“Indigenous” names an emergent, collective, globalizing and (increasingly) legally recognized sociopolitical identity, resulting from a social movement which became institutionalized from around 1980. Typically, those now termed “indigenous peoples” were formerly known by local, regional, or national category terms or ethnonyms applied to them by outsiders (e.g., “American Indians,” “Australian Aborigines,” Eskimo, or Aleuts), rather than by terms that they used among themselves. In many cases older terms have been replaced, also from ca. the 1980s by alternative terms emergent from social and political processes of liberalization within particular nation-states or regions (e.g., “First Nations,” “Native Americans,” Adivasi, or Inuit). “Indigenous” is increasingly used of, and by, these peoples in reference to themselves and others, even where other local and regional designations persist. Though forms of the word have a long history, “indigeneity” is relatively recent in internationalist usage. This use grew in relation to a range of circumstances: the interaction of indigenous activism with developing global institutions; Third World decolonization and civil rights activism; political and economic conditions that prompted reorganization by (especially liberal-democratic but also other) states of entitlements to land and resources; and diffusion of measures implicating indigeneity across levels of state and corporate administration. Given indigenous globalization, some authors write of “becoming” indigenous. The recency and selective participation of indigenous people and communities means that there is often a considerable gap between elite relationship to internationalist concepts and activism and more local forms of understanding on the part of indigenous people less engaged at that level. Some states continue to deny the applicability of “indigeneity” to their own situations, while affirming its relevance to states of settler colonial origin. Yet indigenous organizations are emerging even in such countries (e.g., Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, India). The League of Nations and, later, the United Nations, have centrally hosted and promoted globalization of the indigenous category. Concern with those now considered to be “indigenous” took shape after World War I as a matter of labor conditions and human rights affecting “disadvantaged” peoples in “underdeveloped” countries. In the post–World War II period there was concern with “discrimination” against disadvantaged and “indigenous” peoples. In 1982, a Working Group on Indigenous Populations was created within the United Nations. The main product of the working group over twenty-five years was the formulation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (cited under United Nations as a Center of Indigenous Globalization), adopted by the General Assembly in 2007.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 357-376
Author(s):  
Michael Coyle

Whether Indigenous peoples have a right to withhold their consent to proposed resource developments on their traditional lands is a topic of much debate at the moment. Canada’s endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples raises questions about Canada’s existing consultation law, which generally does not require Indigenous peoples’ advance consent to proposed uses of their traditional lands. While the issue of consent is important, the author argues that focusing only on the end point of consultations misses important questions about the capacity of existing consultation processes to promote consensus-building between the state and Indigenous peoples. This article takes a critical look at the structure of current consultation processes in Canada and proposes changes that would strengthen their capacity to manage conflicts effectively, to respect Indigenous values and legal orders, and to advance the long-term relationship between the Canadian state and Indigenous peoples.


2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole R Bowman-Farrell

EvalIndigenous began in November 2015 as a global task force network of EvalPartners. This Origin Story of EvalIndigenous is shared to describe some of the work being carried out today by Indigenous evaluators in the global north and south. EvalIndigenous’ roots provide the tribal critical and Indigenous theories and methods, as well as the legal and political distinctions of Indigenous peoples and Tribal/First Nations. EvalIndigenous shares how evaluation is done “by us and for us”. The article concludes by highlighting key strategies that the field of evaluation can consider in the future when working with Indigenous populations and sovereign Tribal/First Nations governments and communities.


2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kawser Ahmed

AbstractBangladesh is one of the 11 states which abstained in voting on the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The reason as stated by the representative of Bangladesh at UN is that the term 'indigenous peoples' has not been clearly defined or identified in the aforementioned Declaration. In fact, the government of Bangladesh has been persistently denying many of the marginal communities' claim to recognition as indigenous peoples. The article argues that the state of non-dominance is one of the determining criteria of the definitions of indigenous peoples in international law. Drawing on the discourses of subaltern historiography and internal colonialism, this article further argues that the said marginal communities of Bangladesh indeed meet all the criteria including non-dominance inasmuch as they are entitled to recognition and legal protection as indigenous peoples. Case studies on historical profiles of three marginal communities of Bangladesh are provided as factual evidence in support of the above proposition.


1986 ◽  
Vol 80 (2) ◽  
pp. 369-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russel Lawrence Barsh

The Working Group on Indigenous Populations, an organ of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, ended its fourth annual session last August by distributing seven “draft principles” to governments and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) for comment as the first step in preparing “a draft declaration on indigenous rights, which may be proclaimed by the General Assembly.” For the first time since indigenous organizations took their concerns to the international level in 1977, a formal commitment has been made to the development of new law, probably in time for the “cinquecentennial” in 1992 of the “discovery” of the Americas and a proposed international indigenous year.


Author(s):  
Annette Skovsted Hansen

AbstractThe re-vitalization of indigenous languages depends on political and legal support and the implementation of language rights depends on knowledge of vocabulary and grammar structures of the individual languages. Throughout the nineteenth century world, compilers of dictionaries adapted indigenous languages to match standards defined in nation-building and, thereby, enabled latent possibilities for indigenous populations to re-vitalize their languages in connection with the United Nations Year for Indigenous Peoples in 1993, and the first United Nations Decade for Indigenous Peoples, 1995-2004. This article focuses on dictionaries of the languages of the Ainu populations in the borderlands between the nation-states Japan and Russia. The main argument is that the Ainu Cultural Promotion Act promulgated in 1997 had a significant impact on the production and purpose of Ainu dictionaries. The dictionaries prior to 1997 functioned, predominantly, as records, which contributed to the increased visibility of Ainu populations inside and outside Japan in the immediate national interests of Japan, whereas the dictionaries published after 1997 are intended to enable the active use of Ainu language today. An important sub-point is that the post-1997 Ainu dictionaries rely heavily on dictionaries, word lists, and grammar books compiled before 1997, which have therefore come to support efforts to re-vitalize Ainu languages in the twenty-first century.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document