Let me also take a moment to say that the whole concept of indigeneity, constantly invoked by a certain species of pro-Palestine activist, is an utter waste of time. Neither side has any clear historical claim to being the first people there, as neither are descendants of the Canaanites described in the Torah. (The notion that Jewish people are indigenous to Palestine is denied by their own holy book - Abraham was from Iraq!) We will never, ever resolve the historical debates to anyone’s satisfaction. More to the point, though… rights do not stem from indigeneity. I understand that, to a large degree, academics essentially reverse-engineered the concept in order to give moral heft to the plight of the Native Americans, who were the victims of a largely-successful genocide. But the rights of the Native Americans did not depend on their indigenous nature, especially considering that like all people they came here from somewhere else. We shouldn’t have slaughtered them not because they had some sort of unique connection to the land that they were on but because they were human and in possession of rights. The same applies to Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs - they are there, they have the right to stay and to live in peace and prosperity. There is no lawyering our way out of this by pretending we know who was there first. The concepts of democratic rule, human rights, egalitarianism, and international law must be enough.
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/can-the-liberal-democratic-project
No, by that logic, American descendants of slaves are not indigenous because they had their history universally ripped from them, but many American Indian tribes have been struggling for centuries to keep their culture alive and avoid total assimilation. It’s not settled theory right now. The impetus is to say that “first” is not what makes a people “indigenous” and trying to figure out what does is an ongoing effort. Fully ssimilated peoples only claims to indigeniety would be a story of being “first” and some genetic markers, neither of which feature in any of the indigenous cultures around the world. The only people who apply “first” and blood criteria are the colonizers.
I think you should directly refer me to these “scholars” you’re referring to, because what you’re claiming they say strains credulity.
“No indigenous cultures care about blood quantum”, “No indigenous people care about their claim to be first to the land” – these claims can’t be taken seriously, so let e just read the actual thing you’re paraphrasing.
On the one hand… if some stupid Americans spout nonsense like “people haven’t been struggling for centuries to keep their culture alive and avoid total assimilation” - who cares? If they’re that ignorant, let them be ignorant. On the other hand, I’m curious to see if people claiming to be scholars are actually spouting this.
Nick Estes and scholars in his circle are having this discussions. I didn’t say “no indigenous people care about blood quantum”. That’s a strawman. I said that blood quantum is not an indigenous concept and was not used by indigenous peoples prior to colonization. Concepts of kinship in indigenous societies do not map 1-to-1 with concepts of kinship in European societies. Indigenous communities in the USA, Canada, and Latin America were forced into legal constraints that elevated blood quantum as a means of survival, but also a means of oppression.
I did not say “no indigenous people care about their claim to be first to the land”. That’s a strawman. I said that indigeniety is not predicated on being first to the land until colonizers invented the term indigenous and gave it legal status. That which made one culture of the land and another culture not of the land had nothing to do with “first claims” but rather with participatory stewardship and correct relations. There are many stories of indigenous peoples leaving lands that they failed to steward properly and in the new lands they needed to spend generations learning how to live. There are also many stories of indigenous peoples splintering from each other and merging with each other. The concept of being of the land had nothing to do with first rights and everything to with relationships.
So the European concept of indigeniety is itself a colonial imposition that is being worked through and there are not definitive answers or a single definition at this time. What is clear is that it is colonized people who will lead the way in answering these questions and dismantling the Eurocentric understandings as part of the process of decolonization.
It’s made extra difficult as people, like Nick Estes, explore the process of indigenizing while the genocidal colonial empire is still prosecuting its genocide. In theory, it’s possible for all peoples to become indigenous over a sufficient number of generations by returning to right relations with the land, but in practice, such theory would likely lead to more violent displacement by white settlers who will attempt to use theories of indigenizing to legitimize their genocidal regimes.
That is to say, none of this is settled and if someone is going to claim that the debate around Palestine and Palestinians is “who was here first”, they are clearly not paying attention to the discourse, and if they are going to conflate “who was here first” with the entirety of the concept of indigeniety, they are both not paying attention to the discourse and engaging in dangerous reductionism.
Palestinians have better things to be paying attention to than a Professor of American Studies.
Are you missing the plot here? We’re not talking about Palestinians engaging in this discourse but rather Freddie DeBoer