The Western Hemisphere is a region that features some of the world’s constitutional frameworks that are most attentive and inclusive to the matter of indigenous rights. While many of these strides are highly commendable and even revolutionary, given humanity’s oppressive history, these texts stand in large contrast to the actual reality on the ground where indigenous activists continue to face ignorance, persecution, and, in some cases, death. Even amongst activist circles, the discussion surrounding indigenous communities tends to focus on land protection or a degree of land autonomy at best, which is itself often poorly enforced in practice, and indigenous people’s rights are seen as a means of enriching the nation’s diversity and standing against the colonial past but often with the result of mere commercialization of said culture. Without a more meaningful recollection of the past and an education geared towards a more in-depth appreciation of local customs and diversity, indigenous localities and cultures are reduced to a mere superficial acknowledgement and a figurine an indigenous artisan is attempting to sell to a mildly excited foreigner.
It is crucial to maintain and strengthen the present rhetoric of inclusion, as well as remember the injustices of the colonial past that saw indigenous people subjugated and stripped of their own land and basic human rights, and recognize the contributions of indigenous communities’ to the crucially needed struggle for environmental rights, but the only way to truly move forward is through a broader legal and social recognition of the right to self-determination of these communities. To truly acknowledge and guarantee indigenous people’s humanity and rights and allow for actual preservation and celebration of indigenous people’s identity, culture, language, and socioeconomic progress and inclusion, is to give indigenous people’s voices an actual platform, support better community organization, even across the modern national borders where possible, to listen to input coming from indigenous communities themselves rather than outside assumptions aimed at simply checking off an inclusionary-sounding box when making policy, to guarantee the right to land and meaningful preservation of one’s history, and not to reduce the conversation to a discussion on tourism and environmental rights happening in a vacuum but rather to acknowledge the imperative need of indigenous communities to participate at every level of societal organization and be able to contribute to legal, economic, and sociocultural practices of their country, neighborhood, and local community - to enjoy their human right to self-determination.
First Things First: The Land
When discussing the issue of indigenous peoples’ rights, this rhetoric is often inextricably tied to land. Each indigenous group, as understood by tribal alliances and modern understandings of ethnic boundaries, is assigned a specific geographic space and either given a certain degree of authority over it or paid certain symbolic respects as a reference to the original inhabitants of that geographic space. While land and territory are often key aspects of a group’s identity, it should also be acknowledged that conventional understandings of territorial boundaries may not apply to the indigenous societies of the Americas. To claim a certain territory for a certain group may actually discredit its group’s actual association with the land or impose a foreign and post-colonial worldview.
In the case of Canada, many indigenous groups prefer to not associate themselves with the Canadian identity and actually do not even agree with the very idea of the Canadian entity. While this does not mean Canada does not exist as a country in present world, and it does not necessarily imply these groups’ refusal to acknowledge or even operate within Canada’s framework, it is true that the very idea of citizenship, international and internal treaties, or the idea of land ownership and claims do not necessarily reflect the worldview of these groups and Canada’s attempts to formalize its relationship can be met with reasonable distrust as imposition of the idea of land claims, borders, or the idea of “Canadian” sovereign indigenous nations can come across as paternalistic and reminiscent of colonization. In fact, Canada has also introduced a statement of acknowledgement read in schools, official functions, and even concerts, sports events, and award ceremonies. These statements are meant to pay respect to a specific group that lived on this territory by mentioning their name and recognizing the “enduring presence of the Aboriginal peoples on this land.” The statements are also adapted to read specific region’s most prevalent indigenous groups and acknowledge their specific partaking in Canada’s historical and modern day state-formation processes.
While these statements are a step forward from previous history of forced assimilation, sterilization, and betrayal of prior treaties with the indigenous groups in modern-day Canada, the statements also do not acknowledge the modern lack of advancements in terms of addressing indigenous peoples’ concerns, such as the issue of disappearances of men and women, environmental rights, the very issue of historical injustice, forced assimilation, and illegal overtaking of land. Therefore, the very statements that are meant to pay respect can, at best, actually reveal the ironic hypocrisy of the promise of acknowledgement while not taking concrete action and are in fact potentially just another way to subjugate indigenous groups to the idea of Canada and presence of Canadian hegemony. Additionally, in some cases, the groups mentioned in statements, like the Haudenosaunee and the Anishinabe, may themselves be in disagreement over who had historical presence in certain areas, which can lead to additional confusion and alienation, and some with the authorities all the while continuing to insufficiently address concerns submitted by the peoples that these statements are supposed to protect. While acknowledgement of historical and present day contribution of indigenous people to the land is the very least a modern government can do, any discussion of land rights and historical and modern day presence should not be casually presented on behalf of the modern hegemon state but rather carefully discussed and presented in accordance with the indigenous groups’ worldviews and discussion.
All discussion, seemingly needless to say, should also be transparent and respectful of differences the governing present-day nation state has with cultural and legal frameworks of indigenous groups it is intending to include in these conversations and formal treaties. In the case of Argentina, for example, one can argue that historically most oppression and erasure of land settlements and original socio-cultural relations has been done by the colonial Spanish Crown. However, some of the nations that emerged out of anticolonial struggle for independence and freedoms, such as Argentina and Chile, have themselves expanded their borders thus pushing out original settlers, and the very entities of each modern state in the Western Hemisphere today can be considered a de facto hegemonic presence on behalf of the indigenous, settlers of these lands. While history cannot be undone and lands cannot simply be return due to complexity of demographic and cultural shifts, the very least each of these nation states can do is recognize the enduring legacy of pre-colonial nations, the painful colonial history of injustice and violence, but also continuous contributions of each of these original nations to modern day state-making and sociopolitical life, without implying the need of indigenous, or original (a term often used in some parts of South America to avoid colonial and othering connotations of the word “indigenous”), peoples’ need to assimilate in the modern concept of a nation state but rather allowing for this concept to be expanded to accommodate the people it is supposed to be composed of, which includes indigenous peoples and their homes.
However, going beyond this, present-day nation states should not leave indigenous people as part of a “tradition” and the “past” but rather recognize the very existence and agency of these groups in modernity. Indigenous, or original, peoples should be offered protections by the present-day hegemon state and their input should actively be acknowledged and respected, with concrete action taken to address these concerns. Going back to the Southern Cone, Argentina also is amongst states that presently and historically have had the most inclusive constitutional and legal texts as it pertains to indigenous peoples’ land rights and cultural acknowledgement. Regardless of this, on a regular quiet, breezy day in Buenos Aires, the historic Plaza de Mayo features a constantly present tent that proudly stands right across from Casa Rosada, with the raised Wiphala. While some of the reasons for protests are more structural, such as corruption, abuse of power by authorities, need for greater justice in local governance etc., many of the signs just ask for the government to grant indigenous women an audience, and each reason could best be addressed with greater effort to include indigenous leaders on negotiating tables, and actually listen to their input, their vision for land organization, and their understanding of governance and its principles.
Going north to the beautiful Falls of Iguazu, original communities are largely left to look for their own educational resources and recent treaties actually stripped some of the smaller but very present communities of their original land claims. I personally had the honor to visit these communities and saw hotels that were originally not supposed to be there inhabiting more than half of the area designated for this group. A 2005 accord with the government, according to local residents, encoded confusing language and manipulated tribal leaders into signing treaties that gave up virtually half of their territory. This meant that this society suddenly got hotels and tourists instead of assistance in programs meant to ensure preservation of the local language, history, and culture, assist the members of this group in capacity-building and use of modern professional tools needed to succeed and bring socioeconomic gain and recognition to the area. This discussion is not meant to critique or single out either Canada or Argentina, but rather to applaud existing well-meaning efforts at integration and acknowledgement these governments have undergone but also remind of the need to be critical and not only acknowledge but also address underlying inequalities in power dynamics between modern states and indigenous peoples.
In the end, any discussion about land is not just about land. It is about a larger question of identity, of the right to resources, and of recognition of the negotiating power and agency of the people of this land. To recognize this is to move beyond the idea of territorial claims, and even of the very concept of modern-day nation-state, and allow for changes necessary to ensure acceptance and actual transparent, educated, and democratic inclusion of the people that inhabit the land.
Communities Across Borders
Tied to the very idea of competing understandings of citizenship and belonging to land is the fact that indigenous groups of the Western Hemisphere oftentimes are situated and made to work within a territorially constricting modern nation-state boundary. In other words, indigenous communities are oftentimes separated from fellow community members by an international border, a reality that only makes community organizing, activism, negotiating, and retention of a linguistic, social, and cultural identity that much more difficult to obtain, maintain, and perfect. In some cases, like in the case of Guaraní-speaking groups of the Iguazu Falls, friendly relations amongst Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay maintain the borders open and circulation and transport can be more easily negotiated, with Paraguay maintaining legal appreciation and practical fluency of Guaraní amidst its borders and facilitating retention of this language, even if colonial time changes. However, friendly relations and sociopolitical exchanges amongst these states have not historically been consistent to say the least and there is nothing, all three being sovereign states, that prevents any of these states from hypothetically choosing a more repressive legal framework that would, if not completely cut off, then more severely restrain movement and intragroup exchange of these regional peoples. In the case of the Miskito people, Honduras and Nicaragua have also enjoyed friendly relations and have also constituted a shared political entity at times. However, they enjoy sovereignty and can similarly choose to restrict the processes of community organizing of Miskitos across their sovereign borders. Furthermore, the effect that the recent proclamations of states of emergency in Honduras and the recent prosecution of journalists and international organizations in Nicaragua, as well as the recent assassinations of prominent environmental activists of indigenous descent in both countries, is yet to be better understood, especially as it pertains to indigenous groups that already lack acknowledgement of sovereignty, a seat at the UN, or another concrete legal recognition on national and international levels.
Here again we have to acknowledge that historical injustice cannot simply be undone and that inclusion cannot be achieved overnight. However, the United Nations have created working groups, forums, committees, and assembled conventions and proclamations to address the issue of indigenous rights and their representation in the international system, and have also invited actual tribal leaders to speak in the interest of their nations. This is a beginning but is a practice that is still lacking consistency, transparency, education, and mutual respect, and equal footing needed for actual democratic inclusion of the indigenous peoples. Furthermore, there should be more effort on behalf of regional bodies to address local concerns and assist in indigenous community organizing across borders. This does not mean that countries need to give up their sovereignty but is rather again connected with the aforementioned idea of care for all citizens that the present-day states claim are trying to protect.
It is Not Just About That Souvenir
I am adding this section because I all too often see people going to North American reservations to buy dream catchers or buying those Wiphala stickers as a proud souvenir from their trip to South America. This is not to say that there is anything inherently wrong with these practices, and they in fact oftentimes are the main source of income and sustenance for many indigenous groups throughout the Hemisphere and the world. The problem I see with this practice is when people buy these items without realizing they are more than just items, that their meaning contains actual spiritual and political significance. Furthermore, it should be questioned that this type of tourism and souvenir selling is what entire groups of people need to be able to survive. Why are indigenous peoples’ industries being reduced to consumption by tourists from mainstream hegemonic circles? Why are objects that hold spiritual, historical, and sociopolitical meaning to them being commercialized, instrumentalized, and misunderstood? This is another power dynamic that we can begin to address through greater education, transparency, and democratic respect for human rights and inclusion of these groups and their practices. A single tourist choosing to learn about what Wiphala stands for or choosing not to buy a dream catcher from Target but invest in a handmade product instead and learn of its origins will not generate a structural change individually. However, this may look like a step in the right direction.
More structurally speaking, however, the culture and very existence of indigenous groups would not be commercialized if proper respect were given to their identity, sovereignty, and sociocultural context. Does this mean sovereignty is necessary to allow for proper self-realization and self-determination of indigenous peoples? This seems to be the actual central question of each subset of issues that surround indigenous rights, be it citizenship, political representation, environmental protection, or cultural preservation issues. This of course depends on complex historical and political implications that are specific to each local and regional contexts. I do want to highlight current successes and implications in granting actual self-determination rights to indigenous peoples.
Of all current world constitutions, only the Constitution of the Plurinational State of Bolivia grants explicit rights to self-determination to the indigenous people on the country’s soil, as article 30 in its second clause contains reference to the rights of “self-determination and territoriality” when discussing the country’s “nations and rural native indigenous people.” Just the very phrasing in terms of the level of nationhood when talking about the country’s minority and indigenous communities is very unique and revolutionary as the very phrasing would be considered by some world leaders as dangerously giving up on the hegemon nation-state’s sovereignty. However, this particular permission has scarcely been exercised in practice given that the pandemic, a coup d'etat, and various administrative changes have delayed the process of granting autonomy to those that requested it or were in the process of requesting it. The case of Guaraní Charagua is fascinating because, since 2015, this particular nation has managed to gain a level of autonomy within its territorial boundaries, with deliberative assembly and traditional forms of governance creating a successful hybrid style of decision-making, functioning effectively in the broader global neoliberal framework while also introducing and maintaining the local customary decision-making processes. However, the tension with the departmental and state governments, and particularly with differently racialized groups, with white mestizos in particular, means that the ability to reach self-determination and own expression without de facto limitations and judgment is not yet realized. Constitutional provisions themselves might not yet be sufficiently detailed and widespread to guarantee self-determination, but Bolivia’s Constitution represents a potential step in the right direction, where nation-state recognized its plurality and that complexity of its constituents’ identities goes beyond the traditional framework of the nation-state, and provisions granted for local autonomy, language and collective knowledge-sharing as means of cultural and scientific preservation can be argued to have significantly supported Bolivian state-formation and human rights prospects.
Another particularly interesting case is that of Chile and the rejected new constitutional framework proposed officially in the latter half of 2022 following extensive protests demanding justice and a new constitution back in 2019. Amidst a constitutional drafting process that was designed to be exceptionally inclusive of the country’s women, minorities, and civil society but that also ended up embroidered in a degree of controversy and many delays given the pandemic and complex global realities, Chile saw its new constitutional proposal in September of 2022 that was widely rejected in spite of the fact that majority expressed a willingness to move away from Pinochet’s constitutional framework still in use in Chile. The sheer length of the text, as well as some of the vague and legally unsecured language embedded by largely politically inexperienced constitutional assembly, were signs of alarms for many voters. Additionally, some described the constitutional draft as utopian and as putting economic progress of Chile at risk due to potentially expensive social protections it guarantees. However, this attempt at a change in constitutional framework represents a very important subject of study to perfect future processes of constitutional drafting. Of particular interest to this article are provisions given to indigenous groups in Chile. The assembly of indigenous community leaders was proud to include clauses on self-determination and even on independent judiciary processes for indigenous communities. However, this proved to be some of the most controversial additions to the new constitutional draft as many felt that this would create a legal gray area and infringe upon Chilean sovereignty and equality of its people under law. This is a legitimate concern and legal implications of such decisions as well as the final supremacy of the constitutional law must be carefully discussed and understood. On the other hand, however, amongst the responses to these concerns on behalf of indigenous leaders also stands a clear understanding and promise by the Chilean state that, by signing to various international laws including the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, the state already committed itself to allowing a degree of autonomy and self-determination rights and the peoples are in fact looking for what already was signaled as legally appropriate. While there is much to learn from this process and contradictions continue to present themselves, the fact that these attempts have occurred and that some other world regions, such as West Africa, have shown profound steps forward in terms of local judiciary and democratic assembly styles and representations being constitutionally recognized, there are avenues for learning and future advancements on this complex legal and social issue.
Conclusion
The issue of inclusion and granting and securing actual self-determination rights to indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere, and the world, is a very complex one. It is evident that the very definition of who gets the claim of belonging to a people, a territory, or the very status of a nation is a very complex problem. However, recognizing this complexity, allowing space for a greater conversation, more education, transparency, democracy, and supremacy of the issues of human rights and inclusion as conversational and constitutional drafting frameworks pose a potential step in the right direction. While these issues are becoming increasingly understood, which can be seen in the solutions proposed throughout the text of this article, practical examples from real life show that there is still a lack of education on the issue of indigenous rights, freedoms, and sociocultural integrity amongst the general populations, the modern nation-states stand largely in practical denial of their responsibility, and actual conversations that allow parity and conscious participation to indigenous communities in the state-building and rights-securing processes are still dangerously scarce in practice. It is only through involvement of indigenous communities themselves, one which goes across borders and beyond the present-day restrictions of the globalized neoliberal frameworks, that a change in the right direction can be taken.