Indigenous

I think I, Lynell, am indigenous to California, that is I originate from there and consider myself sometimes as a resident there, while my husband is an indigene to Cote d'Ivoire. The Larousse gives this use in French as its first meaning. It gives as its second meaning, referring to the peoples the "colons" found living here, the non European populations living in former colonies. This is also a use I am familiar with and have heard often. Maybe in this context (depending on whose mouth it comes from) it is pejorative. However, in Liberia, there are the indigenous peoples, in contrast to those freed slaves who came and who are not indigenous. Granted they are seen as dominating. But these days it is good to be indigenous, something you are proud to be. There is also the case of "medecine indigene" without any negative connotation whatsoever. It means traditional, from this territory, and NOT WESTERN. It means 'natural', not the West trying to kill us with their chemicals... Have you listened to Mugabe lately? I used to think he was a crazy man, but his rages against the West from an African viewpoint make perfect sense to me now (just a few days ago on RFI) What really shocks me is that the UN is going to tell anyone what any word means. I am tired of seeing UN tanks around my house, on the streets of Abidjan, in Yamossoukro, around this country, and all over the world.... and now they have their own definitions for words? How about allowing Africa to use this word to apply to its own history in its own way? Anyway, thanks, James, for raising our awareness re UN and for sharing this good article....

My post of this article was not so much to evaluate the UN, but rather to discuss the use of "indigenous" in the context of Bible translation. More broadly speaking, and in relationship to the article, is the construction of words/concepts that shape how we view 'the other.' Edward Said's postcolonial work with 'Orientalism' discusses the Western construction of this concept. In a similar way, 'indigenous' might shape how we view 'the other.' For example, if you do a Google search of 'indigenous' and click on the Images, the pictures portrayed are incredibly stereotypical. The article posted suggests why this is so. As for a connection with BT, I venture to guess that there has been a construction of 'the other' in similar fashion by Western Bible agencies.

The problem (in part at least) is that once an oppressor uses a term for the oppressed, the oppressed no longer want to use it: See the following progression: Colored people Negro Black Afro-American African-American People of color (wider than just AfricanAmericans, but ironic still considering it comes full circle) Each time the majority began to use (and thus contaminated) a new term for the minority, the minority had to find a new one. This is not to say that terms for minorities are ever completely descriptive and free of attitudinal projection. In fact, such "frequencies" of communication are inevitable. Even if not intended by the user, if the minority takes offense we majorities must pay attention. I personally use "indigenous" to avoid other worse (for me) options ("Native," "Indian," etc.), but will change again if I need to. So what is the next term for minority people groups we need to use (and inevitably contaminate)?

The issue for would be that in Bible translation we would need to look at the way the group itself appropriates a name or sees itself. And this can be very diverse across languages , territories and regions. For example, I noticed in Guyana that the indigenous groups would prefer the term "Amerindian" and that this was widely accepted. Of course, in many languages and regions the term "indian" has become derogatory so many of us avoid The term "indigenous" was used than to replace in the Americas region context. I know in the US the term First nations has gain some popularity over the years. The issue is also to an issue of listening the groups themselves. In some countries I know in the Americas people wear the term "indigenous" with some level of pride. It all depends. Of course, the way that the term is used depends heavily on the user, the audience and the context like any term. From my perspective, I have always been a bit careful with going either way, that is to impose a term or to not use a term that a people group has already made their own and use it in an emancipatory member. I think in part we cannot escape from the history and the burden of the words and should avoid using them if the contemporary group opposes it. For example, I always notice that in Surinamese Dutch the word "neger" (negro) is used in quite a neutral and self referencing manner without necessary having a bad connotation or the term "bush creole" (bosland creole). In my own Creole the use is a bit more stigmatized and has different connotations depending on who says it. Indeed, as JAmes says Googling indigenous shows a certain image or perspective and a "construction of the other". Indeed important to check and listen to the groups themselves. In general in project descriptions we do use indigenous as opposed to "indian, First nations or ancestral group" but most of the time the description that is most important to the group has been their ethnic description (e.g. Qom Lataq instead of Toba (Argentina), Inuit instead of Eskimo, Uwotujja instead of Piaroa (Venezuela), etc. Thanks for sharing this article.

Yes - people have been labeling other groups with their own names since time memorial.The attempt, in the last 50 years, to find politically correct labels is doomed to failure if the persons who use them continue to think of the other group in a derogatory way. Bob, you mentioned the evolution of terms in the U.S. for Americans of African origin. In Canada the same goes for our 'indigenous' population, meaning 'original' or first peoples to populate North America . When I was a child, they were Indians, then they were natives, and now they are First Nations people. In Africa, I say African, or Burkina national, or such and such ethnic group indigenous of Burkina Faso -meaning, whose origins (at least in the last several hundred years) are the land that is now Burkina Faso, etc. For example, the Yoruba are not indigenous of Burkina, but the Mossi people are. And yes - a term such as indigenous will have different connotations in different places. But the most important thing is one's attitudes towards people different from ourselves.

While I have not personally observed the specific term 'indigenous' used in a sign language context, there is a comparable issue. Hearing people have used terms like "hearing impaired", "hearing handicapped", "deaf and dumb", "deaf-mute", and the like to describe Deaf people. All of these are generally perceived as negative terms. At least in the United States, you will see us self-identify as a Deaf person or a hard of hearing person. Those of us who identify ourselves as a Deaf person are stating that we view deafness not as a disability, but a cultural and linguistic community whose primary language is a sign language. The hard of hearing person (or person with a hearing loss) is usually someone who has a strong connection (or need for a connection) to the hearing community and does view their deafness as a negative. In other countries that I have visited, there are usually more who identify as Deaf rather than "hard of hearing." While, from a strictly medical perspective, one could make a case that there is a disability present, Deaf communities have gone beyond a mere medical condition and have become cultural and linguistic communities. Where Deaf people have not been able to do so, it has largely been because hearing people (intentionally or not) have limited Deaf people's use of sign language and Deaf culture to conform them to hearing expectations. What many hearing people do not realize, is that within a Deaf community, there is no disability. We have the full potential to express ourselves just like any hearing person can do. The only thing we can't do (as the famous quote goes) is hear. So the challenge for us is helping hearing people understand that they need to move past their auditory bias that assumes all educated language must be expressed in a spoken language and give Deaf people the opportunity to function as equals using a sign language. To make this point, Deaf people who understand the richness of Deaf languages and cultures proudly wear the label Deaf. For instance, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfiIMGDkzHg.

I tried to look up the term 'indigeous' in Chinese, which means 'grow or root from the original geographical location. What do we mean original geogrphaical location, started from what time in the history? The only indigeneous people should be the inhabitants around the Ark of Noah or the towel of Babel. All the rest are diaspora. If Bible translation is only a means to communicate and transform, why couldn't read teach others other major languages or the Biblical languages? Why the lingua-franca of international or global chruches and parachurches have to be European langauge, but not the Greek and Hebrew or other languages? When Bible translators or tranlsation pratitioners are talking about indigeneous. The BT NGO's globalizing and internationalizing to include them as us. Is this kind of manifestation of Christendom colonalizing or imperializing? Actually I have see some(not majority) cross-cultural workers merging to the local culture. 'we' become 'you' or 'we' and 'you' ends up with the WE neither the orginal 'we' nor 'you.' With the globalization, I fear that there will be very little pure indigenity left. What is the value, missiology or theology to maintain the indigenity for the end of the long tails of the languages. Should cost-effectiveness be a consideration apart from personal conviction for indigenity or heart languages?

It was almost amusing working in Africa to see how the names used by the colonists of various ethnic groups simply meant something like "people". I can picture it: "Who are you?" the explorer asks. "People," they answer. So the Bantu groups are simply "People." Over and over the names the colonials gave to groups bore little relation to what the people called themselves. Getting it straight in publications is surely the right thing to do. I never thought of "indigenous" as anything but neutral.