The ‘evolving’ definition of Indigenous Peoples

It was on the occasion of a recent courtesy visit of some IP rights activists including Indigenous Peoples Rights Monitor representative Atty Mary Ann Bayang, to the Philippine Embassy in Geneva, Switzerland when Ambassador Erlinda Basilio told the group that “all Filipinos are Indigenous Peoples.”

The diplomat’s statement comes as an encompassing and limited view on how she sees Indigenous Peoples. Her view tells that all Filipinos are the first settlers of a given territory. This means even migrant Filipinos are IPs and they also have ancestral lands. The Ambassador’s statement tells that all Filipinos preserved their culture at the face of a colonizing force. It tells that all Filipinos have a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories.

True? Of course, as anthropology and history tells, the Ambassador’s statement is technically erroneous.

The Philippine Ambassador’s statement likewise finds similarity in the Bangladesh delegate’s statement to an earlier UN Assembly meeting.

The position of the Bangladesh government delegation at the UN Working Group on the Draft Declaration of Indigenous Peoples (WGPD) in 2006, says, “The government of Bangladesh supports the Draft in its present form. However it will not be applicable in Bangladesh as there are no indigenous peoples in the country” (The Independent, November 24, 2006).

The recent UN position of Bangladesh government abstaining from the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Rights aligns its earlier position to the Bangladesh government’s report submitted to the UN Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination in May 2000 which categorically denied the distinct identity of Indigenous Peoples. The report reads:

“Bangladesh’s geographical location and history have made it a home to people of diverse origins, races, colors, and descent. The assimilative character of Bengal civilization combined with the intermingling of inhabitants has resulted in a composite society which has racially and culturally turned into a melting pot over the millennia.”

Lest we go turning a blind eye that there are no Indigenous Peoples, it would be good to refer to some descriptions of who IPs are.

Anthropological usage of the term “indigenous” refers to the early or even first settlers of a given territory. This usage corresponds to usage in international human rights law.

United Nations Special Rapporteur to the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Indigenous communities, referred to:

“Indigenous peoples are those which having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems.”

The World Council of Indigenous People, 1993 came up with this definition:

“Indigenous People are such population groups as we are, who from old-age times have inhabited the lands where we live, who are aware of having a character of our own, with social traditions and means of expressions that are linked to the country inherited from our ancestors, with a language of our own and having certain essential and unique characteristics which confer upon us the strong conviction of belonging to a people, who have an identity in ourselves and should be thus regarded by others.”

Indigenous peoples are the descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived. The new arrivals later became dominant through conquest, occupation, settlement or other means.

Further descriptions of indigenous peoples say that Indigenous Peoples inhabited a land before it was conquered by colonial societies and who consider themselves distinct from the societies currently governing those territories.

They (Indigenous Peoples) have a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them.

Further universal descriptions of Indigenous Peoples say, they, the IPs are very diverse. They live in nearly all the countries on all the continents of the world and form a spectrum of humanity, ranging from traditional hunter-gatherers and subsistence farmers to legal scholars.
In its Operational Directive 4.20, the World Bank views that no single definition can capture the diversity of Indigenous Peoples. However identifying few characteristics, World Bank tries to single out Indigenous Peoples as having: a close attachment to ancestral territories and to the natural resources on these areas; self identification by others as members of a distinct cultural group and indigenous language, often different from the national language; presence of customary social and political institutions; and having primarily subsistence –oriented production.

International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 107 of 1957 defined indigenous or tribal or semi tribal populations in independent countries. According to this definition, “indigenous tribal, or semi-tribal population of a special category who inhabit in a particular region and have specific historical experiences.”

This definition describes the distinct cultural identifies and geographical concentration of the Indigenous Peoples from the rest of the society and they have special relationship with the land which they live in and with the environment surrounding therein.

Yet, with all these descriptive definitions, there seems to be no standard definition of who an Indigenous Person is.

The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) says, “there does not seem to be one definitive definition of indigenous people, but generally indigenous people are those that have historically belonged to a particular region or country, before its colonization or transformation into a nation state, and may have different—often unique—cultural, linguistic, traditional, and other characteristics to those of the dominant culture of that region or state.”

Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples though, an official definition of "indigenous" has not been adopted by any United Nations-system body. Instead the system has developed a modern understanding of this term based on the following: self-identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member; and historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies.

Source: Discourses on Policy Perspectives on Land Rights and Adibashis of the Plains of northwest Bangladesh, by Gina Dizon, Published by VSOB, 2008

Read more...

SMSS’ers abroad renew ties, help build school

Once again, self-determining alumni of Saint Mary’s School of Sagada (SMSS) manifested their moral and financial support to the school which continues to serve hundreds of students in Mountain Province, especially those located in the immediate town of Sagada. Nearly 150 SMSS alumni living in Canada and the US, and other SMSS resident- alumni of the Philippines gathered at St. Michael's Church, Vancouver, Canada last August 6 to 9, 2009 to observe the 4th SMSS Alumni and Friends Conference.

With theme, "We build our school on you Lord; to you we bring our common need", financial contributions poured in terms of coin collections in sponsoring an SMS faculty.

SMSSInc is a non-profit institution committed to extending affordable quality education, particularly to children of indigenous communities in the hinterlands of the Cordillera. It was incorporated in 2003 as an autonomous entity from the former management of Episcopal Church in the Philippines. SMSSInc was then called Saint Mary’s School established by American missionaries of the Philippine Anglican Church in 1904.

The school enjoyed financial capacity until the Philippine church’s conversion to an autonomous entity in 1990. Since then, SMS suffered financial setbacks along with the autonomous church which experienced similar financial woes.

SMS since 1990 was able to thrive on donations from alumni and friends and other institutions like subsidy from the Department of Education. As of this time, alumni are still supporting the financial sustainability of the school through donations via scholarships, sponsoring salaries of staff, and material donations such as books, and infrastructure.

To raise funds for the school during the Vancouver event, Sponsor a Golf Hole was launched
with sponsors giving in their financial commitments. The golf tournament which was
participated by SMSSer gold enthusiasts was chaired by SMS alumnus Erwin
Killip.

Lambert Sagalla, President of the US-based St Mary’s School Sagada, Alumni and Friends Foundation (SMSAFF) said, ”The Vancouver SMSS conference was the first to be held outside of the United States and the enthusiasm and excitement it created particularly to the younger alumni will definitely help advance the message that: "We are engaged in an undertaking far greater than ourselves; greater than the physical confines of St. Mary's School; greater than the Sagada community.We are engaged in an undertaking vital to the survival of our very own people - the indigenous communities in the hinterlands of Northern Philippines.” (reports from SMSyahoogroups.com)

Photo by Ceasar Castro

Link here

Read more...

Charismatize Cordillera autonomy

As we observe the World's Indigenous Peoples Day on August 9 and conclude celebration of Cordillera Month (July) by the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), we are again reminded on the quest for regional autonomy among the indigenous peoples of the Cordillera generally referred to as Igorots.

Being subjected to a plebiscite 19 years ago and lost, elusive Cordillera autonomy is still as elusive as ever. Only 29% of respondents positively favor autonomy, says a survey conducted in 2008 by CAR's Regional Development Council (RDC).

And for the rest of thousands of Cordillerans with voting age, autonomy still sounds strange. As strange as a shooting star which disappears all too sudden. As strange as Jennifer Hewitt or the Prince of Wales. As strange as Tobleron or Kenny Rogers to an elder in the dap-ay until you give or show him a roasted chicken straight from Kenny Rogers Roasters. It is as strange even as the golden kuhol introduced by technologic Department of Agriculture who says the snail serves a multipurpose function so these were sown on rice fields, but practically grabbed space for rice plants to grow normally in some parts of the Cordillera as experienced by most farmers a decade ago.

Why….? What is wrong with this beautiful concept of being self determining like a matured, independent and empowered woman or man?

Why can’t it get through and be accepted by the rest of the Cordillerans or the Igorots for that matter?

Obviously, there must be really something wrong of why it is not that popular like Michael Jackson or Robin Padilla and Sharon Cuneta among Filipinos.

What does Michael Jackson and Robin Padilla have in common which makes them popular and liked by multitudes of people. Of course they are both guapo and both are celebrities. They identify with the common masa (people) and feel their sentiments. You can sense in the songs of Michael Jackson and for Robin, you can sense him identifying with u in his movies and the way he talks. While Jacko comes from humble beginnings, Robin da Idol goes along with people on the streets.

And what do people like? Obviously, people like things and ideas and people which/who jibe with what they feel and need and relate with, on day to day life. People associate ideas to what they can grasp. Ay makan sa? Ay mabalin ma-i- tono? Ay tet-ewa’y toma sa? Ineee, kampot ubpay dis toma…etc… (Is that eaten? Can it be roasted? Is it truly a flea? Oooooh, that was one lie of a flea etc...)

A dream, we make autonomy land on earth concretely to the psyche of the practical Igorot so that autonomy plebiscite Part 3 will at least see better ratings.

Best as how the best advocate and autonomy campaigner can explain what autonomy is, IF it is far from the psyche of the non-airhead Igorot, this beautiful ideal for autonomy will not see reality. You cannot ram down the throat, autonomy until it is digestible, eatable, edible, or guapo and irresistible.

So, ‘show me’ what it means. Show me the money says Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire.
How much money and jobs can we get if we are autonomous?

Can a son or daughter have better chances of being employed after graduation if we are autonomous? Shall there be increased daily wages to cope with rising costs of almost any commodity?

So we see what givens we have. Because we go autonomous and rely greatly on what we have, we ask what moneyable potentials do we have? First of all, we have a very industrious, ingenious and ingenuous people who can make things happen. We have the mountains full of gold. Do we like these to be mined? Can we turn these mountains into livelihood ventures if we are autonomous? (And by the way , how much are we getting or have taken from the Lepanto Mines through the years? As we watch Mankayan sink apparently because of the many underground mining which is happening, and sons and daughters from Mankayan areleaving their home sweet home out as migrant workers to wherever richer country there is, LCMC rakes in millions of money from those mountains of gold.)

We have nature and environs showing big potentials for ecotourism. Do we like these to be transformed into sources of livelihood? Can we make enough money to feed our family out of tourism from these towering or rolling mountains of Mt Kanip-aw or Mt Pulag?

How much can the government of the Republic of Philippine my Philippines help out in making industries happen for the Cordillera without asking for big cut in taxes? How much Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) and development funds can the national govt give while we are gaining a fully autonomous region, or give as part of its regular accountability to give in the very first place, the Cordillera being part of the country?

We have the mighty headwaters of Chico and Siffu Rivers, serving as sources of hydro-electrical energy for NAPOCOR. How much income are we getting while NAPOCOR and the national government controls the proceeds? Are we really getting money from these powerful sources of energy? Do we have the enabling law to take our share? If so, are we getting our share?

We have a number of telecommunication relay stations in our localities. How much are we taking in terms of percentage shares? Or are they just there sitting on our land as big companies rake in money for those millions worth of texting and calls that we do?

How far can we control what we have at the moment? Can we control our own resources given that we have the Regalian Doctrine and national laws which dictate how much we can or cannot receive? Let us make this interplay of national laws and prospective autonomous laws very concretely clear to be understood and how much we are entitled so to know.

At the same time, we also deal with corrupt politicians who muddle the concept of what autonomy means, that they also need to get their corruptitious tendencies off their system so that the rest of the people of the Cordillera will believe in what they are blabbering about.

Because as we see Ifugao who was optimistic at first turned negative on the second plebiscite. Why oh why?

So I ask, what autonomous situations have we as Igorots exercised or can exercise in daily life, as individual persons and in cohorts or rather in partnership with another?

When transportation costs go five pesos higher, do we see protesting commuters or do they just accept it as the will of the supernatural or whatever it is? Or do we just shrug our shoulders and do nothing about it while enjoying the ride anyway and pay whatever amount it is?

How autonomous and assertive are we as individuals and as peoples in a wider community do in demanding for our rights and making a better place to live in? For sure, we know what our rights are. Unless we don’t , that is very very, very bad news indeed.

How autonomous are we as individuals in the very first place? Or to use politically loaded words, “self determining” and “empowered”.

I guess there are better chances of Cordillera getting autonomous if the autonomy information campaign will show what the Cordilleran can get out of being autonomous and how to reach there. With this basic info, we can be part of the “vision”, as we reflect also on how autonomous our individual and collective psyche is in the very first place. Then we can say, at least, we are ready for Autonomy Plebiscite Part 111.

But of course there still other factors to consider like a culturally diverse Cordillera inhabited by ethnolinguistic groups with ethnocentric prejudices.

Read more...

Cordillera autonomy, being part of the vision

"......so that we can say at the end of the day that the people of the Cordillera are part of that vision. And for as long as they are part of that vision I am sure that our people will not just be recipients of development but they will become a dynamic force for meaningful developments for the region."

Read more on the MESSAGE OF SOLIDARITY delivered by Presidential Assistant for Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) Thomas A. Killip during the Closing Program of the 2009 Cordillera Month Celebration Baguio Convention Center , Baguio City, July 30, 2009.

FIRST OF ALL, MY WARM GREETINGS TO EVERYONE on the occasion of the 22nd Anniversary of the Cordillera Administrative Region as a distinct political region in the Philippines. I am deeply honored this morning to give a few thoughts and a message of solidarity for this occasion.

My Distinguished Brothers and Sisters of the Cordillera, Ladies and Gentlemen!

One hundred ten years ago upon the demise of the Spanish colonial regime in the Philippines and the entry of America as the new colonial master, it would be of great interest to imagine how both the previous and the new colonial powers regarded the people of the Cordillera mountain region at that stage of Philippine history. It is for certain that there was a common observation, a common perception, and also a common description.

From the northernmost tip of Apayao to the southern fringes of what is now Benguet Province we can be sure that we were all regarded as Ygorrotes which is an ancient Tagalog term for “people of the mountains” (sad to say that over the years this term has been used, misused, and abused). Likewise, from the terms that were used to describe us, both by the Spanish and by the early American authorities and missionaries, we could be sure that both colonial powers at that time regarded us as uncivilized. This must have been the beginnings of the “making of a cultural minority”. For us people in the Cordillera, while it is true that there were many things in common, there was as much diversity and differences in our way of life.

On one hand, we were all the same half-naked people wearing loin cloths, we had the same musical instruments, we had the same type of wet rice terraced culture, we had similar forms of animist religion and conversely, we had different dialects, different architectures, different weaving designs, and many countless differences. We were all fiercely independent tribal communities living side by side with each other but we were likewise neighboring communities that warred against each other. Thus among the different native communities in the region, the fact is that we were as different as we were similar in various ways and respects. Politically each village had its own council of elders that administered its own particular governance. And socio-politically there was no pan-Cordillera nation to speak of. We were a paradox of sorts. We could be one and the same, and we could also be one but different.

And yet despite all these differences among the various communities in this mountain region and all the perceptions attributed to us we hold the proud distinction alongside our Muslim brothers in Mindanao as one of the unconquered peoples during the more than 300 years of Spanish rule in the Philippines. We have read of the great Mayan and Inca civilizations of America which were decimated to extinction in a few years under the weight of the Spanish conquests. But here in the small island of Northern Luzon are half-naked people who fought tooth and nail for more than 300 years to defend their domains and their independence.

Thus while the rest of our Filipino neighbors were made peons of Spain for three centuries, we were living a life of freedom- we were singing our own songs, we were dancing our own dances, and worshipping the way our ancestors did. Some historians may attribute our successful Igorot independence as mainly the result of geographic circumstance but early Spanish written accounts would describe the many armed expeditions waged by the Spanish army to force the native communities of the Cordillera to submit to Spanish rule.

The latest and last of these expeditions was led by Colonel Guillermo Galvey, the so-called “Butcher of Cuba” in the 1800’s who burned entire villages from Kapangan all the way to the Ifugao side of the Cordillera in order to force the people into submission. Coupled with these armed conquests was the Spanish Policy of Reducciones that justified the Spanish colonial government to compel the native inhabitants of the Cordillera mountain region to go down to the plains and to live a Christian life. All of these failed to the embarrassment of the Spanish Crown. This Ladies and Gentlemen, is one of the great success stories that have never been told.

Why do I have to share these historical accounts? Because this is one of the basic reasons for our existence as a region. It speaks of our collective character that has made us survive in the worse of times. The fact that we share a common historical process and experience in our history have helped carve a distinct collective personality, a distinct color and a socio-cultural bond that sum up to make our peoplehood and our identity.

Next, this whole journey towards national integration for the people of the Cordillera from the time of the Commonwealth to the present Republic is another historical process that must be evaluated and weighed objectively in order to steer development towards a more sound, a more just, and a more sustainable development for us in our region. This is in fact saying that the integration of the Cordillera region and its people into the mainstream over the past century have resulted in not a small measure to the socio-cultural, political, and economic disintegration of our region. We should recall that at one time, a slice of the Cordillera Region was integrated into Region I while the other half of our region was integrated into Region II.

Many of our political decisions are being made above and outside of the region for us. Most of our natural resources which include our mineral resources, our trees and forests, as well as our rivers were transferred into the control of big interests. Our region in the Cordillera has virtually been used and treated as a resource base by and for bigger interests to our disadvantage. Integration and development in its many faces for us has meant disadvantage. Meanwhile under the present set-up our region continues to receive one of the lowest allocations from the national budget. And so this is what we get for all the wealth of natural resources that is being taken away from us. If this is the type of development that will remain with us for the years to come it is not difficult to see where this will lead us to.

The creation of the Cordillera Administrative Region which is what we are celebrating now on its 22nd anniversary was supposed to prepare the way for an autonomous region of the Cordillera as government’s recognition and response to correcting a past imbalance and an unjust set-up. It should not therefore come as a surprise if the Regional Development Council should sound out the call for the continued “quest for autonomy” because it is only fulfilling a constitutional mandate. The issue therefore should be focused more on what kind of autonomy do we want and the best way that the exercise should be conducted.

Thus, in previous and initial discussions, formal and informal, some points and consensus have become clearer:

(a) That the concept of autonomy for the Cordillera Region should never be discriminating in any manner against any particular person or group of people but should consider all people living in the region as natives and citizens of the region with equal rights, privileges, and opportunities. If Cordillera autonomy does not carry this principle then it should not even be discussed at all.

(b) We belong to a new order. We do not intend to go back and live like the way our ancestors lived because that is a thing of the past. While we preserve the good things of the past, the beautiful aspects of our culture, and the important values, what we are trying to develop is a set-up that should respond more effectively and efficiently within the context of a new order. It must be concept that is better than a previous one. If it does not, then there is no sense pursuing that kind of concept and aspiration.

(c) Autonomy should mean a greater local control of plans and political decisions in matters that affect the region. Imperial Manila has the tendency to dictate plans for us in the region. Autonomy should be able to reverse that process.

(d) The development of an autonomous concept should be participatory down to the grassroots levels. The subject of plebiscite should not be the primary goal of this process. Only the people can clamor for such an exercise if they grasp the essence of this concept. A process should be designed to effectively involve the widest participation of people and of different sectors in our region. We know that this process will take time but that is the reality of this type of political exercise so that we can say at the end of the day that the people of the Cordillera are part of that vision. And for as long as they are part of that vision I am sure that our people will not just be recipients of development but they will become a dynamic force for meaningful developments for the region.

In fact at this time of unparalleled global economic crisis, it is but proper that the discussions for regional autonomy should be expanded and intensified to enrich the concept even more. We have to be empowered for the worse.

At this juncture let me encourage that those at the helm of development for our region should really sit down occasionally to study and assess what this exercise and quest for autonomy is and what it means for us, specially the greater majority of people in the Cordillera Region.

Having said these let me thank you once again. It was a great privilege!

Read more...