Indigenous Peoples, Poverty, and Self-Determination in Australia ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Indigenous Peoples, Poverty and Self-Determination“distributive justice, needs and development discourses have beenused to support this preference for confining Maori claims tothe domestic, dependent rights of citizenship…. Each of thesediscourses defines the ‘problem’ largely in terms of Maori socioeconomicstatus” (see also Maaka and Fleras 2000).The exception to this pattern would seem to be, superficially at least,the United States. In the mid-1970s, in response to a nationwidemovement of Indian political activism and aggressive demands byIndian nations for greater self-government and increased controlover lands and other resources, the U.S. government adopted apolicy commonly known as “self-determination.” This policy, atleast on paper, acknowledged the right of Indian nations to decidefor themselves what was best for them.The rhetoric of self-determination, however, outstripped thereality. Despite the name, this was not self-determination inthe classic sense. The intent was not to give Indian nations thepower to reshape the political order either within tribes or in theirrelations with the United States. What policy-makers had in mindwas more modest: a shift from federal bureaucrats to tribal onesin administrative authority over federal socio-economic supportprograms (see Barsh and Trosper 1975; Deloria and Lytle 1983;Esber 1992). In other words, the federal idea was to treat selfgovernmentas self-administration, turning tribal governmentsinto adjuncts of the federal administrative apparatus. In the yearssince, most federal involvement in Indian affairs has been moreconcerned with addressing social problems than with buildingIndigenous capacities for genuine self-rule. This trend has beensupported by recent U.S. court decisions that have severelycurtailed tribal jurisdiction and undermined Indigenous rights ofself-government (Getches 2001; Wilkins 2002).In sum, central governments have tended to respond to Indigenouspeoples in the same ways they have responded to immigrant andother minority populations: with egalitarian and assimilativepolicies that attempt to address Indigenous disadvantage andfacilitate integration into encompassing societies. In particular, the10
Cornellstark discrepancy between Indigenous socio-economic indicatorsand those of the society at large has been a matter of recurrentpolicy concern, generating a diverse array of initiatives designed tobring Indigenous indicators more in line with the mainstream. 10Thus there is a significant mismatch between the ambitions ofIndigenous peoples and the responses of states. States generallyhave been more willing to engage with socio-economic issues ofequity and access than the political issues of self-determinationand difference that often have mattered more to Indigenouspeoples. 11It is not difficult to understand why. As Fleras (1999: 188) remarks,“At stake in the ethno-politics of indigeneity are fundamentalchallenges to the conventions and tacit assumptions that underpinthe governance of White-settler dominions.” Indigenous selfdeterminationchallenges state concerns about societal cohesionand universality (“we are all the same”). In cases where Indigenouspeoples potentially control significant natural resources, it threatensthe ability of the state to utilize those resources or facilitate theirmovement onto the market; and it generally undermines the state’sability to tightly control either what happens within its borders orthe political order itself, forcing the state to consider—in at leastsome areas of political structure—a decision-making partnership.10. Such policies have had decidedly mixed results in all four countries. Forexample, while considerable progress has been made in some areas, such ascertain aspects of indigenous health, much less has been made against the moregeneral phenomenon of indigenous poverty.11. In drawing a distinction between indigenous assertions and state response,I do not mean to suggest that indigenous peoples have been uninterested inequity or in addressing the grim realities of poverty. But indigenous politics inall four countries have tended to be recognitive first and distributive second.While there are exceptions, particularly among urban populations, rightsto land, recognition and self-government have tended to take priority oversocio-economic issues. This has distinguished much indigenous politics fromthe more distributive politics of immigrant groups or other, non-indigenousminority populations.11
Page 1 and 2: Joint Occasional Papers on on Nativ
Page 3 and 4: CornellIndigenous Peoples, Poverty
Page 9 and 10: CornellObviously the differences ar
Page 11 and 12: CornellCommonalitiesAlthough there
Page 13 and 14: CornellThe present inquiry, while p
Page 15: CornellCentral governments, on the
Page 19 and 20: Cornellusual economic factors such
Page 21 and 22: CornellThe meaning and role of self
Page 23 and 24: Cornellis needed. Those nations mak
Page 25 and 26: CornellThe U.S. government had inad
Page 27 and 28: CornellSuch variation does not nega
Page 29 and 30: CornellBern and Dodds discuss the s
Page 31 and 32: Cornellgroup identities and boundar
Page 33 and 34: CornellThe overall policy implicati
Page 35 and 36: CornellReferencesAnaya, S.J. 1996.
Page 37 and 38: Cornell-----. 1995. ‘Where does e
Page 39 and 40: CornellHarvard Project on American
Page 41 and 42: CornellJorgensen, M., and J. Taylor
Page 43 and 44: CornellNative Nations Institute for
Page 45 and 46: CornellWakeling, S., M. Jorgensen,
Page 47 and 48: Joint Occasional Papers on Native A

Indigenous Peoples, Poverty, and Self-Determination in Australia ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?