Lesson 1.

1: The Concept of Indigeneity

The word “indigeneity” refers to the nature of being “indigenous.” The International
Labor Organization (ILO) (1989) and the United Nations (UN) (1986) defined the
concept, respectively, as follows:

“(a) Tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural, and economic
conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and
whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their customs or traditions or by
special laws or regulations; (b) peoples in independent countries who are regarded
as indigenous on account of their descent from populations which inhabited the land,
or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or
colonization or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective
of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and
political institutions” [ILO 1989: Article 1.1].

“Indigenous communities, peoples, and nations are those which have a historical
continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their
territories; consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the 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, by their cultural patterns, social institutions, and
legal systems” [UN, 1986; Cobo 1986, 5:para.379, cited by Dove, 2006].

Figure 1 Maasai participant at the 18th Session of the United Nations Permanent
Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII)
Source: https://www.un.org/en/events/indigenousday/

Based on the definitions above, the word "indigenous" focused on historical

continuity, distinctiveness, marginalization, self-identity, and self-governance (Dove,
2006). Another way of defining “indigenous people” is through self-ascription. Some
of the IP (Indigenous People) groups identified themselves based on territory and
particular distinct ways of living (Del Popolo et al., 2007).

However, despite these existing definitions by international institutions, there is no

concrete universal definition of the term because different countries define the word
based on the country's condition (Yescas and Trujano, 2008). As you can see, even
the concept “indigenous” is problematic. What do you think is the implication if there
is no universal definition of the term?

“Indigeneity” or “indigenous” is an essential tool for the indigenous people to impose

their identity to form collective actions against threats to their livelihood, culture, and
even their very existence. You will learn and understand these threats as we
continue our discussion regarding globalization and how it affects the Indigenous
Peoples.
Lesson 1.2: World Indigenous People and Globalization

World Indigenous Peoples

According to the United Nations, there are an estimated 370 million Indigenous
Peoples in the world, living across 90 countries. They comprise 5% of the world’s
total population but account for 15% of the poorest. They speak of an estimated 7,
000 languages and represent 5, 000 different cultures.

There is no easy way of answering those questions above, considering the

complexity of globalization, its corresponding processes, various perspectives,
diverse effects on different countries, and different sectors within each country.
Among many definitions, this book will stick to the view that “globalization is an
increasing global interconnectedness, the expansion, and intensification of social
relations across world-time and world-space, a multidimensional process involving
diverse domains of activity and interaction in the economic, political and cultural
spheres” (Steger, 2014 p. 3 & 11).

According to O’Sullivan (2012), globalization evokes both an opportunity and neo-

colonial injustice:

On one hand, globalization under neoliberal ideology paved the way to free-trade,
foreign direct investment, restructuring of domestic policies, and many more. In other
words, this is the process behind, among others, the mass exportation and
importation of goods and services, the establishment of Multinational Corporations
(MNCs) and Transnational Corporations(TNCs), and the restructuring of domestic
policies allowing a respective country to be part of the global political-economy which
to a certain extent threatened its sovereignty. All these happened simultaneously
around the globe every day. Resulting in a simultaneous accumulation of wealth and
power, on the one hand; and depletion of natural resources, community
displacements, conflicts, child labor and trafficking, dispossession of land,
oppression and even genocide on the other side. Unfortunately, most of the IPs were
situated in areas that were prime targets for resource development (Bodley, 2008).
With that being said, what do you think is the fate of the IPs living in areas where
companies extract natural resources like mining and logging or in areas where big
agri-plantations were established?

On the other hand, globalization enhances significant benefits in terms of

economic opportunities; it also creates global activism and cooperation among the
IPs (O’Sullivan, 2012). In terms of Economic opportunities, globalization connects
IPs to the worldwide market. This is an avenue for them to engage in the cash-
market system, which gives them a chance to expand their economy. Resulting for
them to earn money which they would use in purchasing things that they wanted.
This will also help them enjoy the social services available in their areas like
education, hospitalization, transportation, and many more. In terms of global
activism and cooperation, globalization offers a platform for IPs worldwide to be
heard, recognized, and respected. This is through the creation of International
Government Organizations focusing on the rights and plights of the IPs like the
United Nations Declarations on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP);
creation also of various Non-Government Organizations focusing on IPs like Cultural
Watch, International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, Indigenous Environmental
Networks, etc.; there is also an inclusion of IPs in International Laws like the
International Labor Organization Declaration no. 169; inclusion of IPs in the
development framework of Asian Development Bank and World Bank; and several
indigenous organizations at the national and international levels.

Globalization and Resistance

However, Saguier (2012) considered activism, cooperation, and formation of

organizations among IPs around the globe as an alternative and a form
of resistance to neoliberal globalization. Because globalization is an “invasive
systems” that wanted to take over the ancestral land of the IPs (Fenelon & Hall, 2010
p.1880). The reality is that Indigenous systems do not conform, and it is in conflict
with capitalism or the globalization system (Hershey, 2019). This indicates
contradictions between the indigenous and capitalist modes of production and
perceptions towards the resources and the ecosystems. To quote Fenelon & Hall
(2008), “The orientation of the IPs to the land is in direct opposition to how modern,
capitalistic society approaches land, with direct economic values and individual
title… It is the collective nature of indigenous life that appears to be a conflict with
modern social systems. Such collectivity includes the land, distributive economics,
shared decision making, and the community” (p.1876); this is the so-called “relativity
of adaptation” by Julian Steward (you will understand this topic more as we discuss
the historical process and cultural adaptation of the Philippine IPs).

Also, part of the globalization system is privatization, of which indigenous lands are
not exempted. Converting indigenous lands to private property is a shackle to the IPs
themselves required to undergo processes to have legal documents of their claim.
Unfortunately, private companies, private individuals, and even governments are
also claiming the lands of the IPs to develop it for economic gain. The process is
often disguised as eliminating poverty and enhancing a productive way of life, but
reality reveals that it is often the other way around – the accumulation by
dispossession (this will be discussed further in Chapter 5).
Moreover, globalization [free trade policies] require restructuring domestic political
spheres; this prevents the government from favoring or protecting its local industries,
farmers, or cultures (Hershey, 2019). Resulting in the continuation of marginalization
of the IPs as inevitable victims who are unable to benefit in their engagement in the
global economy (O’Sullivan, 2012 p.643). Hence, there is a non-stop battle of the
organizations mentioned above and the Indigenous Peoples against globalization's
forces - the globalization resistance. This form of resistance is defined as “the
actions of oppressed groups or subaltern forces, directed at undermining the power
strategy used by ruling classes to create and maintain social order in conditions of
uneven capitalist development” (Saguier, 2012 p.3).

Specifically, IPs from different parts of the globe are fighting and demonstrating
against MNCs and TNCs that extract natural resources (such as coal, copper, gold,
oil, etc.), established agro-businesses, resorts, and economic zones, other forms of
development interventions and state policies. Furthermore, IP groups share a
general concern with the unequal concentration of wealth and power, poverty, the
weakening of labor conditions, the democratic deficit of global institutions and
processes, the destruction of the environment and all forms of domination based on
class, race, gender, culture, and sexuality (Saguier, 2012). The effects of
globalization are described by IPs as “socioeconomic depression” and “further
cultural suppression” (Fenelon & Hall, 2008 p. 1874). Thus, they are protesting and
fighting for their rights to cultural sovereignty.

The IPs in Brazil are known for actively resisting logging and dam constructions in
the forest of Amazon. Let me share a little information from the article by Simone
Athayde (2014) entitled Contemporary Debates: Indigenous Peoples, Dams, and
Resistance in Brazilian Amazonia:

Figure 2 Kayapo protesting for the Dam construction in their territory. Source:
Aljazeera.com
Brazil relies on hydropower for the generation of up to 85% of its electricity needs.
The government plans to build over 25 large hydroelectric dams in the next 30 years,
these will affect at least 30% of Amazonian indigenous lands. These projects violate
existing laws, including indigenous rights. It conflicts as well to the worldviews of the
IPs that natural resources cannot be owned by humans since they have their spirits
or masters. Resistance movements led by Amazonian IPs such as the Kayapo and
Munduruku contributed to the formation of indigenous leaders and inspired the social
mobilization of non-indigenous peoples in Brazil (pp.80 - 83).

In the Philippines, the acquisition of independence from the colonizers did not end
the struggles of the Filipinos, specifically the indigenous peoples. As the country
strives to join the wagon of globalization, it opens its door for MNCs to extract
resources, it initiates development projects such as dams and conservations parks,
and it imposed laws that will meet the conditions of neoliberalism. All these
significantly affect the well-being of the Philippine Indigenous people. Until now, the
IPs are still in their fight for cultural rights. On August 09, 2019, many IP groups
protested in front of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),
calling for the non-renewal of mining concessions (this will be discussed further in
the succeeding chapters).

Figure 3. Philippine IP groups protest in front of DENR

Source: https://www.democratic-erosion.com/2019/12/09/indigenous-struggle-a-
shortfall-of-philippine-democracy/

There may be differences in the struggles among IPs in the different parts of the
globe. But they all share the same plight - cultural sovereignty and autonomy. To
quote Fellon & Hall (2010) “indigenous peoples will resist and survive because of
their ability to maintain community, find leadership, distribute resources equitably
among their people, and above all keep our respect for the land, the earth as our
grandmother from which we are born and to which we will return) (p. 1895).

Lesson 1.3 Who are the Philippine Indigenous People

Philippine Indigenous People

From a global perspective, let us now focus on our Indigenous Peoples. The
Philippines is home to various indigenous peoples, also called ethnic minorities,
cultural minorities, or tribal Filipinos (Burton 2003). Population reports of the
Philippine indigenous peoples range from 11-17 million, which is about 10-20% of
the total population (see Burton 2003; Rodil 1994; De Vera 2007; Eder 2000). The
majority (61%) of them are found in Mindanao known to be called Lumads (a group
of IPs), 33% in Luzon, and 6% in the Visayas (Cariňo 2012). However, many of them
are already residing outside their ancestral territories living sedentary and semi-
nomadic lifestyles.

The Philippine Constitution of 1987 recognizes indigenous peoples' rights within the
framework of national unity and development (Ty, 2010). To implement this
Constitutional provision, the Philippine Government promulgated the Indigenous
Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997. It established the National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) with a mandate to protect and promote the interests and
well-being of the Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) or Indigenous Peoples
(IPs). Historically, they were handled by various government agencies. Starting with
the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes in 1901 during the American colonization.
Followed by the Presidential Assistance on National Minorities (PANAMIN) during
the time of Ferdinand Marcos. This was followed by the Office for Muslim Affairs, and
Cultural Communities (OMACC) established last 1984. And lastly, the National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP).

Philippine Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples
Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), in Rule II section 1 (I), defined indigenous people as to
quote:

"...a group of people or homogenous societies identified by self-ascription and

ascription by others, who have continuously lived as an organized community on
communally bounded and defined territory, and who have, under claims of
ownership since time immemorial, occupied, possessed and utilized such territories,
sharing common bonds of language, customs, traditions, and other distinctive
cultural traits, or who have, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads
of colonization, non-indigenous religions, and cultures, became historically
differentiated from the majority of Filipinos."

While Indigenous Cultural Community (ICC) is defined as, to quote:

"peoples who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the
populations which inhabited the country, at the time of conquest or colonization or at
the time of inroads of non-indigenous religions and cultures or the establishment of
present state boundaries who retain some or all of their own social, economic,
cultural and political institutions, but who may have been displaced from their
traditional domains or who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains."

Based on IPRA, there are seven ethnographic areas within the country (Fig. 4),
namely: Region 1 and CAR, Region 2, the rest of Luzon (Region 3, 4 and 5), island-
groups (Mindoro, Panay, Negros, and Palawan), Northern and Western Mindanao,
Southern and Eastern Mindanao, and Central Mindanao (See ADB 2002; IPRA). The
indigenous groups in Mindanao are collectively known as Lumad (original dwellers).
Within these ethnographic regions are various groups of indigenous peoples who are
physically and linguistically unique with distinct ways of life.

Figure 4 Philippine Ethnographiv Map (source: Coalition for Indigenous People's Rights and Ancestral Domains
(CIPRAD)/ International Labour Organization (ILO)/ BILAMCE - Asia Department, Guide to RA 8371, Manila.
2004 see Candelaria et.al, 2007)
In his study of the Indigenous People in the Philippines, De Vera (2007) found that a
vast majority of the 12 million population of Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines
who reside in the uplands are among the poorest and the most disadvantaged social
groups in the country. Just like other Filipinos, Illiteracy, unemployment, and poverty
incidence are prevalent among the IPs. Balilla et al. (2013) added that high poverty
incidence has forced many IPs to move out of their traditional lands. Unfortunately,
our country has no updated cultural mapping, even local government offices do
not have an updated census of the IPs in their jurisdictions. In other words, there is
limited data available about our own IPs in the government offices. Even the agency
responsible for safeguarding the IPs' rights is not fully capable of doing its functions.
This partly explains why IPs are suffering and also considered marginalized.

The Problem of Indigeneity

I hope you understood the topic of indigeneity. Because here, in the case of the
Philippine IPs, IPRA’s definition of “indigenous people” focuses on those who live in
their ancestral domains and who remain untouched by colonization. It is a definition
based on historical continuity, distinctiveness, self-identity, and
territoriality. Territoriality in this matter is very important considering that many
indigenous people nowadays are already going out of their ancestral domains; these
are the migrant IPs (this will be discussed in detail in the latter part of this book).
Therefore, the concept of territoriality should not be a requirement in identifying and
recognizing a community as indigenous, for it will disqualify those who have no
territory either due to eviction or migration (Yescas and Trujano, 2008).

According to the Asian Development Bank (2002) in its research entitled "IP/Ethnic
Minorities and Poverty Reduction: The Philippines," that the definition of the
Philippine indigenous peoples, either through self-ascription or as ascribed by
others, is quite indefinite and weak (the problem of indigeneity). The study
illustrated the case of the IPs in Mindanao, specifically the Moros and the Lumad.
During the pre-colonial period, Islam was introduced in the southern part of
Mindanao. Those who adopted the religion became the Moros, while others were
eventually referred to as the Lumad (will be discussed in detail in Chapter 2). This is
already contestable about the definition of indigenous people, as indicated in IPRA.

Historical processes, international and national definitions of indigenous peoples

and/or the question of ethnic identity, state policies, capitalism, limited data available
in the Government records, social injustices and many more have crucial impacts to
the lives of the Philippine Indigenous Peoples (IPs) or the Indigenous Cultural
Communities (ICCs) as they continue to survive every single day of their lives. All
these will be tackled as the rest of the book will discuss specific topics concerning
the current situation of the Philippine IPs.