Defining who are ‘Indigenous’ has historically been problematic. Many definitions are viewed by Indigenous peoples as marginalising, disempowering and exclusionary. The lack of a definition may be considered problematic to this research, so in the section below I propose a working definition.
3.2.1
Identification of Indigenous peoples
Indigenous peoples are the most diverse and complex grouping of humanity. Worldwide, at least 370 million people are considered to be Indigenous (IWGIA, 2013). Represented across approximately 5,000 different nation groups, speaking at least 4–5,000 of the approximately 6,000 languages existing today, they are geographically located across all states and territories (Posey, 2002, p.26).
To be Indigenous is to exist within a multiplicity of global and collective identities. Through their geographic spread across nation-state borders, different faith communities, gender and ethnic boundaries Indigenous peoples embody identity pluralism (Barth, 1969; Berger, 1990). Identity pluralism is clearly articulated by Khan (cited in Talbot, 1998, p.1), who declared he had been a Pushtun for 4,000 years, a Muslim for 1,400 years and a Pakistani for forty years. Indigeneity is not delineated by natural boundaries and state borders but by the social landscape where, “some of the strongest claims of difference are made by the marginalized and
deracinated, by those who would otherwise be absorbed, eliminated and forgotten by dominant societies” (Niezen, 2003, p.6).
Due to the complexity and potential for exclusion in defining Indigeneity, the UN and many other international bodies have not adopted a formal definition of Indigeneity. Instead, the UN, led by the UN Permanent Forum for Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), identifies but does not define Indigenous peoples according to the following criteria – not all of which need to be fulfilled to claim Indigeneity (UN Permanent Forum for Indigenous Issues, 2008):
• “Self-identification as Indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by their community as their member.
• Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies. • Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources. • Distinct social, economic or political systems.
• Distinct language, culture and beliefs. • Form non-dominant groups of society.
• Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities”.
The primary importance of self-identification was outlined initially in Convention 169
Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (ILO c.169) (International Labour Organization, 1989). The principle of self-identification is also clearly defined in Article 33 of the Declaration (UN General Assembly, 2007):
“1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. This does not impair the right of
Indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the States in which they live”. Erica-Irene Daes, the former Chairperson of the UN' Working Group on Indigenous Populations, points out that a shared history and distinct cultural characteristics can help to identify some peoples as Indigenous (IWGIA, 2013). Jose R. Martinez Cobo (1983, pp.50-51), the former Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, provided the current working criterion of Indigeneity in his eminent
Study on the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations:
“Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system.
This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the following factors:
a) Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them; b) Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands;
c) Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an Indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.);
d) Language (whether used as the only language, as mother tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language);
e) Residence on certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world; f) Other relevant factors.
On an individual basis, an Indigenous person is one who belongs to these Indigenous populations through self-identification as Indigenous (group consciousness) and is recognized and accepted by these populations as one of its members (acceptance by the group).This preserves for these communities the sovereign right and power to decide who belongs to them, without external interference”.
I agree that both Daes and Cobo’s criterion are relevant and applicable but for one phrase of Cobo’s that I have emphasised: “They form at present non-dominant sectors of society”. Dodson notes that these criterion are contextual, written at a time when most Indigenous activists were from settler-colonial contexts in Australia, New Zealand and Canada (Dodson, 2015, pers. comm., 16 October). I argue that this definition is not accurate for all Indigenous contexts, particularly in the Pacific Region where in most states, including Timor-Leste, Indigenous peoples are the majority population (Alfred & Corntassel, 2005, p.607). In these states, Indigenous peoples lead government, control the economy and resource use, use
criterion or identifiers of Indigenous, including self-identification, and are also the dominant sector in their societies.
With this important difference in mind, I expand Cobo’s (1983) criterion of Indigeneity to reflect the experience of settler-colonial and non-settler colonial Indigenous peoples. The following definition is more inclusive and is used throughout my research:
“Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. Depending on context, they form both non-dominant and dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system” [my emphasis].
3.2.2
Indigeneity in Timor-Leste
A number of East Timorese people and experienced researchers have questioned my use of an Indigenous critical theory lens in Timor-Leste. These people note correctly that few East Timorese people identify as being Indigenous, which underlines a dilemma with the issue of self-identification outlined above. Therefore, it is critical that I explain why I am talking about Indigenous peoples in Timor-Leste.
I argue that East Timorese peoples fit each of the categories of my earlier definition of Indigeneity. Most important is the evidence of strong, vibrant Indigenous knowledge systems practiced by East Timorese throughout the country. Research in anthropology, archaeology and ethno-botany also show that East Timorese people can trace ancestry to the island of Timor- Leste back thousands of years and their historical connection to the land prior to Portuguese colonialism and Indonesian invasion (McClean, 2014; Oliveira, 2008; Traube, 2007). East Timorese people consider themselves to be distinct from the peoples living in nearby islands, and they are the dominant nation grouping within the borders of Timor-Leste. East Timorese people are preserving and strengthening their independence and exploring how to integrate Indigenous culture into governance and legal systems, leadership and decision-making.
East Timorese scholars such as Babo-Soares (2004) and Trindade and Castro (2007) and international researchers including Loch and Prueller (2011) and Ospina and Hohe (2002) emphasise the important links between the struggles and experiences of East Timorese and Indigenous peoples globally. Nevertheless, I was informed that East Timorese mostly self- identify as Indigenous only when it suits them (Durnam & Boughton, 2010, pers. comm., 14
September; da Silva, 2010, pers. comm., 29 September). For example, identifying as
‘Indigenous’ might take place in a human rights debate in New York or Geneva, but rarely does a East Timorese person publicly identify as Indigenous. The term Indigenous is used in Timor- Leste, as an East Timorese peace researcher explained:
“Indigenous people means for me they are the people who live in that place, they have a long history from their grandfathers until now. They have strong, deep feelings about their land around them. They know the history of the land and the people there. They still believe in traditional ways to run their lives” (TTG-1500-300910).
She went on to warn that in a conflict-affected context the label ‘Indigenous’ can exacerbate violence by differentiating and separating East Timorese:
“I have heard that people say that the Indigenous people of Timor are all the people that have the black skin. If you are mixed, then you are not Indigenous anymore. They call it
mestiços. I don’t want to make a difference between me and other people. Sometimes difference can create conflict” (TTG-1500-300910).
While it is rare to have a conversation about Indigeneity, if you were to raise ‘culture’ with East Timorese, you would have a lively and engaged discussion. When East Timorese people talk about culture they talk about a deep reverence, responsibility and relationship to place, clan, and family and reference the importance of language, resource exchange, law and spirituality. Many researchers including Grenfell (2013, pers.comm., 16 July) and Hunt (2013, pers.comm., 16 July) have proposed that the discussion about East Timorese development has shifted in the past five years from one of technical issues and governance, to a much more open discussion
involving culture.
During Portuguese colonialism, and certainly for Portuguese-speaking East Timorese, it would have been highly improbable to label oneself ‘Indigenous’. The Portuguese used the term
indigenas to describe people who are Indigenous, local or natives, and the term has connotations of savagery, and is associated with Hobbes’ social contract, which states that without modern political community the lives of people are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, 1651). Cabral (2002, p.65) cites the 1954 Native Statute in Portuguese law that defines an
indigenas as:
“A person ‘of black race, of black descent, born in the province or habitually resident in it, who has not yet the knowledge and the individual and social habits which are
considered prerequisite to the complete application of the public and private law by which Portuguese citizens are governed”.
Under Portuguese colonialism, indigenas in Timor-Leste were denied civil rights, access to property and were geographically and socially separated from Europeans, assimilados
(Portuguese: assimilated colonial subjects) and mestiços (Portuguese: a person with mixed Indigenous and European parentage) (Cabral, 2002, pp.65-66). In a community striving for modernity, using the term Indigenous can be divisive. An East Timorese development analyst explains:
“The term Indigenous becomes part of a very racist speech. Here you have to be very careful with so much oppression. We are all East Timorese and we all started the idea that we should be independent” (TD-1700-130910).
The potential for structural and cultural violence must be considered when identifying Indigenous peoples and it is necessary to use a conflict-sensitive approach (Anderson, 1999). Taking this approach means considering how the identification and prioritisation of certain Indigenous nations over other groups can act to exacerbate violence or nurture peace.
Internationally, there are examples where claiming Indigeneity has led to the marginalisation of other individuals and groups and Indigeneity has been used to threaten and practice large-scale violence. Claims to Indigeneity can be deeply divisive; however, such identification can also be empowering and lead to cultural, social and political transformation. A senior development practitioner proposed that the challenge of identifying Indigeneity has the potential to initiate violence between groups:
“The issue of Indigeneity it is a very conflictual issue. Examples in Rwanda and Nigeria show that we are not dealing with a romanticised view of Indigenous people, crushed by an oppressive national elite. There are many situations where these identities are used and exploited by political elite for their own gain, which leads to violence”(DD-2100- 250110).
Claims to and definitions of Indigeneity in Timor-Leste are inconstant, fluid and politicised – but not irrelevant. I posit that, in Timor-Leste, East Timorese people’s understanding of custom, culture, power and identity are akin to Indigeneity. The issue of Indigeneity, and its questions of nationalism, identity, land, culture and power are at the heart of development, violence and peacebuilding issues in Timor-Leste. Indigenous critical theory is an important tool to better understand issues of structural and cultural violence in Timor-Leste. I argue, that while Indigeneity is complex, an Indigenous critical theory approach is highly relevant in Timor- Leste.