African Ethnic Groups: Do They Need Recognition - Essay Example

African Ethnic Groups Do They Need Recognition? Many sovereign countries such as the United s of America have long been questioned for the system by which it built its supremacy. The morals of its freedom may largely be a myth but it is not an isolated case. The moralistic myth or its own independence is the same delusion other countries have evangelized races and countries in order to take their land and identities away. Africa is one such case. There are more than 100 ethnic groups in Africa that trace their history through hundreds of years before people from the West started coming to conquer them. It is also this roots that makes the term Indigenous Peoples, not just ambivalent, but highly paradoxical. Definition of Indigenous Peoples The term Indigenous Peoples has been a subject of much debate but mainstream understanding indicates that people who lived in an area before the conquerors arrive are indigenous. This understanding, however, is muddled with confusion. Indians, for example, were in Louisiana before the arrival of white Americans but ask any American and they would claim original ownership of the land. A further understanding would most likely present two concepts: 1) The First People pertains to the original settlers of a country or area. They are also often called ethnic group or aborigines. 2) Cultural Difference is also used as a major differentiating point between who is indigenous and who is not. Languages, religion or spiritual belief, and socio-economic structure define who is indigenous to the culture In a bid to have a universal understanding of indigenous peoples, a defition was developed by Jose Martinez Cobo in the Special Rapporteur on Discrimination against Indigenous Populations. This was, for a time, accepted internationally (Sanders 214): "Indigenous populations are composed of the existing descendants of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of a country wholly or partially at the time when persons of a different culture or ethnic origin arrived there from other parts of the world, overcame them, by conquest, settlement or other means, reduced them to a non-dominant or colonial condition; who today live more in conformity with their particular social, economic and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of the country of which they now form part, under a state structure which incorporates mainly national, social and cultural characteristics of other segments of the population which are predominant." However, the definition resulted to many questions and challenged many political, cultural, and social beliefs. For one, the acceptance of the definition makes the identity of indigenous peoples dependent on the chronology of its social development. Next, classifying conquerors as people from other parts of the world effectively eliminates neighboring conquerors which may have been more prevalent before recorded history. The definition fundamentally assumed and solidified that the formation of identity, history and culture were dependent on when Europeans started colonizing different parts of the world. It was beyond simple. It was, in fact, unreasonable as it ignored the more organic formation of culture, history and identity that started hundreds, if not thousands of years before European colonizers. Essentially, the definition that was supposed to uphold the identity of a country was based on discrimination. So much, in fact, that even their definition had to be around the axis of the colonizers. Europeans had to arrive before the presence of culture is recognized. The definition may have been well-intentioned but the result only lead to further marginalization of people that should have never had to fight for their land. There is also the lack of framework on how culture, tradition and beliefs continue to persist even in the face of modernity and continuous strengthening of global hybrid community. What the definition did, though, is make provide a better and stronger mainstream understanding of the cause of the indigenous peoples. It allowed mainstream society a glimpse of what these people have fought for and survived. However, the definition does not explain the fundamental difference between ethnic groups and the indigenous peoples. In 1983, a more appropriate definition was developed to include people that were technically unrecognized in the first definition. The decision was that even people that didn’t go through colonization are also recognized as indigenous people if they were descendants of a race that were originally from the area before the influence of foreign influence arrived in the country in the form of trade and commerce or actual colonization. If an indigenous community bear similar beliefs and customs with those communities that are formally acknowledged as indigenous, that community will also be acknowledged as indigenous if they were able to preserve their customs, beliefs and tradition or at least part of it. This inclusion has allowed many communities from different parts of the globe to be a part of the global framework for indigenous communities. It even went a step further by acknowledging those that didn’t originate from the area as indigenous peoples if they were placed as a group in the new area. Even those who are not, by blood, a descendant of the community by declares his or her affinity to the race and the group acknowledges the person as one of their own, that person will be acknowledged as indigenous. It was added that any individual who identified himself or herself as indigenous and was accepted by the group or the community as one of its members was to be regarded as an indigenous person (UN 1989). This preserves for these communities the sovereign right and power to decide who belongs to them, without external interference. However, this definition is not always recognized mainstream. It seems that different countries recognize who are the indigenous people relative to their own understanding. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples formally defined Indigenous Peoples through their political condition. Included in their definition is the requirement that a race has to be ‘politically underfavored’ and has minority rights. The Plight of Africa Africa has gone through the some of the harshest history with colonizers. In the 19th century, European countries invaded Africa and stayed on until World War II. Gradually, African states started gaining their independence (Cocker 314). Although colonizers left, a more damaging effect started showing itself. There is the confusion in identity. White supremacy or the mere notion of its existence started showing itself. White Africans were the only ones favored and the Black Africans became a minority (West 6). The years of colony change a national discourse. White Africans were the only Africans accepted in the mainstream society. The people who so clearly occupied the Africa became a minority. African became synonymous to the people belonging to indigenous ethnic groups found on Africa or, at the very least, people who are linked by blood to these ethnic groups. There are at least 3,000 distinct ethnic groups in Africa and they characterized, both by culture and physical attributes such as hair and skin. It is this same struggle that has inspired many of the ethnic tribes to call for equality. Several ethnic groups whose culture and lifestyles are marginalized and distinguished from the dominant economic, cultural and political structure of the state feel it is unfair that they be considered a minority when they were the original inhabitants of the land. However, there is a grave disconnect between the understanding of what is indigenous peoples and what is not. The internationally accepted definition of Indigenous Peoples include any race or group that has their unique and established culture, language, and social systems or those that have connection to already recognized indigenous peoples. Africans can trace their origin to ethnic groups already existing in the land way before colonizers of any form or shape. This automatically makes the entire of Africa Indigenous Peoples. This is why the notion of African tribes being considered as indigenous peoples has gained both acceptance and criticism. The Tuareg of the Sahara and Sahel regions, for example, based their claim to indigenous status on their marginalization from the dominated sedentary agricultural peoples. If their claim is to be based on the formal definition of Indigenous Peoples, their claim is valid. However, that would also make all Africans Indigenous Peoples since all Africans can trace their origins to pre-colonial era. The Indigenous Peoples of Africa Co-coordinating Committee (IPACC), one of the main transnational network organizations recognized as African indigenous peoples’ representative, stated several identifications and characteristics in relation to indigenous claims in Africa: Economic and political demotion caused by colonialism Discrimination usually based on the governance of agricultural peoples in the state system, like lack of access to education and health care of herders and hunters Some of the ethnic groups are physically different due body and facial modification required by their faith The distinction of identity, culture, economy and territoriality that associates herding and hunting peoples to their home environments in forests and deserts. IPACC, however, resists the very act of identifying who is or who is not indigenous because it believes that that identifying a certain group from others as indigenous is discriminatory itself because people in Africa should experience equality and respect. Some of Africa’s ethnic groups were found isolated from the system of the state and these groups should be recognized. It argues that the mere act of having to recognize anyone is not necessary in a society that truly promotes equality. Someone’s existence does not need to be affirmed by anyone else. It all needs be declared by the person or the race. This issue about the indigenous status, rights and concerns is pursued by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR). They adapted the Report of the African Commission’s Working Group on Indigenous Populations/Communities that base their fight on the reality that particular groups are not enjoying the same opportunities and even social recognition as others because of their distinct culture, unique practice and physical isolation. The lack of understanding about their belief, practice, and social practice are motivating the people who is unfamiliar with such existence to consciously or unconsciously discriminate manifested in both obvious and non-obvious ways. The fight, therefore, is more a necessity to change the status quo, regardless of how unreasonable it may be. Social recognition, political power, and influence have always been about the connection and ratio of money over people. It is partially true that money does not really care about the colour of the skin, meaning anyone who has money may get the power they so desire and become as powerful as their money will allow their hand to stretch, the way by which someone gets money is largely up to the people who will give access to money. People is the one that controls money. The decision they make on who may have access to money is dependent on their judgment (Niezen 193). This is what makes the fight necessary. Whites are the ones that hold the power of capitalism. Hence, they are the mainstream and anyone that does not look or act the same is a minority. Africa, being a region filled with unique practices, becomes a region filled with minorities. The struggle to define people is based on this framework. Conclusion IPACC is correct in stating that the act of having to recognize who is indigenous or not may be the root of discrimination. As Richard Moore stated, “Slaves and dogs are named by their masters but free people name themselves.” A race does not need anyone’s affirmation to be considered African. Every African who declares themselves Africans must be afforded equal rights. The term indigenous is not necessary from this standpoint. It is unnecessary, useless, and to certain extent, evil. The international definition may be a concept that is necessary to everyone else except the people who truly know who they are and where they belong. It may be a concept for everyone else outside of race. It may be necessary to those who don’t understand history, culture and reality but it serves no purpose to the people they are trying to identify. No ethnic group in Africa should be called Indigenous Peoples. They are Africans. The fight should not be about identity but rights. Everyone should have the same opportunity, same recognition regardless of the colour of their skin. References Cocker, Mark. Rivers of Blood, Rivers of Gold: Europe’s Conquest of Indigenous Peoples. New York: Grove Press, 1998. Print Niezen, Ronald. The Origins of Indigenism: Human Rights and the Politics of Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. Sanders, Douglas. The UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations, 11 Hum. Rights Q. Geneva: United Nations, 1989. West, Cornel. Prophesy Deliverance: An Afro-American Revolutionary Christianity. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1982. Read More