The Origins of Indigenism: Human Rights and the Politics of Identity (review)

Twenty years of study and thinking culminate in this work by Niezen. Using community-based research from Canada and Africa, this work introduces and explores the emergence of indigenism, the international movement of indigenous peoples.

With chapter 1, indigenous forms of resistance are distinguished from ethnic groups on the basis of their unique political status. The reader is also introduced to the concept of indigenism, which is defined as "the international movement that aspires to promote and protect the rights of the world's 'first peoples.'" Niezen's anthropological roots guide him in this process, but he breaks the mold by studying the world as a microcosm. Here, the discussion of indigenous fleshes out the idea of indigenous and the empirical expression of indigenous as a global phenomenon.

The next chapter explores the international response to indigenous peoples' assertions of sovereignty at two time points: the beginning and end of the twentieth century. This includes three cases: an appeal to the League of Nations from 1922 to 1924 for a hearing investigating a dispute with Canada over tribal self-government; initiatives by the International Labour Organization from 1921 to 1989; and the role of indigenous peoples in the United Nations since its inception. This overview of the indigenous experience in international governing organizations over time allows the reader to better understand the emergence of indigenism.

Chapter 3 examines diversity and commonalities across indigenous peoples. Niezen identifies two axes of difference: a North-South line and in the African/Asian controversy. Indigenous peoples of the North are advantaged by the liberal democratic states and their assimilation-oriented educations that allow them to understand international governing systems while the indigenous peoples from the South struggle to survive in oppressive political systems. Indigenous peoples in Africa and Asia face challenges to politicizing their status as indigenous because the state is liberated from its colonizer. Using the cases of the Crees in Canada and the Tuareg of North Africa, chapter 3 illustrates the shared experiences of marginalization, oppression, and the special rights that indigenous peoples claim. Niezen identifies assimilative education, the loss of subsistence, and state abrogation of treaties as foundations for the formation of a common global indigenous identity.

The goal of chapter 4 is to explore the overlap between the issue of cultural relativism versus ethical universalism and the issue of collective versus universal rights. The author seeks to explain how this overlap presents a challenge to cultural preservation and self-determination for indigenous peoples. This chapter tackles a complex overlap that might be easier to comprehend if it were presented in two separate chapters. There is so much going on that it was difficult to follow the flow of ideas. Although Niezen's statement that there is a "pervasiveness of sovereignty as a point of contestation between indigenous peoples and the states" is believable, it is difficult to judge or verify that his work reveals this to be the case.

Chapter 5 explores how assertions of self-determination influence indigenous-state and indigenous-international governing organization relations. The indigenous expression of self-determination is in opposition to the homogenizing tendency of states. Here Niezen presents empirical examples of the Grand Council of the Crees at the United Nations and disputes within international governing community over the application of the term peoples to indigenous groups. While the goal of self-determination unites indigenous peoples' lobbying efforts in international forums such as human rights meetings and processes, self-determination can take on multiple forms, varying from organization to organization.

With the next chapter, Niezen investigates the political implications of indigenous peoples' assertions of self-determination. The state cannot be the source of justice for self-determination claims on behalf of indigenous peoples because of its interest in the outcome. Even international governing organizations are biased toward the state, as they...