Approaches to Defining Indigenous Peoples

The question of “Who is Indigenous?” has sparked global discussion, especially in legal, academic, and political circles. While there is no single definition accepted by all, a key principle has emerged over time: Indigenous Peoples have the right to define themselves.

This idea gained international recognition in 1977, when the World Council of Indigenous Peoples (WCIP) declared that only Indigenous communities themselves should determine who belongs to them. This principle of self-identification has since become a cornerstone of international law and Indigenous rights advocacy.

Academic Perspectives on Indigenous Identity

Scholars have offered different frameworks to understand Indigenous identity. One influential voice is Franke Wilmer, who described Indigenous Peoples as:

Culturally rooted: They maintain traditions passed down through generations.

Historically autonomous: They had their own political systems before colonization.

Resilient: They continue to resist assimilation and fight for cultural, economic, and political survival. 

Later, Wilmer and Taiaiake Alfred refined this view to emphasize:

Ancestral connection: Indigenous Peoples are descended from the original inhabitants of their lands.

Cultural continuity: They strive to live according to evolving traditions and values.

Lack of political control: Many still face domination by external governments and systems that were imposed during colonization.

Why We Need Comprehensive Definitions of Indigenous Peoples

Defining who is “Indigenous” is not just a technical exercise—it shapes who gets recognized, protected, and heard. Narrow definitions risk excluding communities that don’t fit rigid molds, while broader, more flexible definitions help reflect the diversity and complexity of Indigenous experiences across the world.

The Case for Inclusivity

• Diverse realities: Indigenous communities vary widely in language, culture, governance, and history. A narrow definition might recognize one group but ignore another with equally valid claims.
• Colonial legacies differ: Some groups were displaced centuries ago, others more recently. Some retain land, others do not. A wide definition ensures that all these histories are acknowledged.
• Evolving identities: Indigenous cultures are not frozen in time. They adapt, resist, and transform. Definitions must allow for this dynamism.

S. James Anaya

Anaya emphasizes that Indigenous Peoples are:

• Descendants of the original inhabitants of lands now dominated by others
• Deeply rooted in their territories, culturally and spiritually
• Organized as distinct communities with a continuous sense of identity

This view highlights ancestral connection and cultural continuity, not just legal status or political power.

Fred Riggs

Riggs proposes four key elements to consider:

1. Cultural complexity – from simple to sophisticated societies
2. Historical sequence – who arrived first
3. Political marginalization – power dynamics between groups
4. Geographic rootedness – connection to a specific place

His model encourages a multidimensional view that avoids oversimplification.

Benedict Kingsbury

Kingsbury critiques rigid, “positivist” definitions that try to fit all Indigenous groups into a single legal box. Instead, he proposes a constructivist approach, which:

• Recognizes identity as a fluid, evolving process
• Emphasizes contextual interpretation based on local histories and struggles
• Supports self-identification, historical trauma, regional ties, and the desire to maintain distinctiveness

He also notes that indicators like language, spirituality, and social status can help—but should not be used to exclude.

Why It Matters

A broad, inclusive definition:

• Empowers communities to define themselves
• Prevents erasure of less visible or politically marginalized groups
• Supports justice by recognizing the full spectrum of Indigenous experiences

Would you like this turned into a visual explainer or a short essay for your Payhip site? I can also help you craft a title and description that captures the heart of this message.

Intergovernmental Organizations and the Recognition of Indigenous Peoples

The World Bank’s Early Approach

In its earlier policy framework—specifically Operational Directive 4.20—the World Bank outlined how its staff should identify Indigenous communities when evaluating development projects. Rather than offering a strict definition, the Bank proposed a set of flexible indicators, including:

1. Strong ties to ancestral lands and natural resources
2. Self-identification as Indigenous, and recognition by others as a distinct group
3. Use of a native language, often different from the national language
4. Existence of customary social and political systems
5. A subsistence-based economy, such as farming, fishing, or herding

These criteria were meant to guide project managers in determining whether a group should be considered Indigenous for the purposes of development planning and safeguards.

ILO Convention No. 169: A Rights-Based Alternative

Many Indigenous representatives expressed concern that the World Bank’s approach was too technical and externally imposed. Instead, they advocated for the use of ILO Convention No. 169, a legally binding international treaty that emphasizes self-identification as a fundamental right.

According to ILO 169, Indigenous and tribal peoples include:

• Tribal communities whose cultural, social, and economic systems differ from the dominant society, and who are governed partly by their own customs or special laws
• Descendants of pre-colonial populations who lived in a region before colonization or state formation, and who still maintain distinct institutions and traditions—even if they lack formal legal recognition

This definition centers the historical experience and cultural continuity of Indigenous Peoples, rather than relying solely on external assessments.

The UN’s Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP)

In 1986, the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations proposed a widely referenced working definition. It describes Indigenous Peoples as:

Descendants of those who lived in a territory before colonization or conquest, who were later marginalized or subordinated, and who today continue to live according to their own cultural, social, and economic traditions, often distinct from the dominant institutions of the state.

Importantly, the UN did not require this definition for participation in its Indigenous forums. Indigenous Peoples themselves insisted on the principle of unrestricted self-identification, meaning that no external authority should determine who is or isn’t Indigenous.

Why These Definitions Matter

• Policy impact: Definitions influence who qualifies for legal protections, funding, and consultation in development projects.
• Cultural respect: A rigid or narrow definition can erase the diversity and lived realities of Indigenous communities.
• Self-determination: Recognizing the right of communities to define themselves is central to Indigenous sovereignty and dignity.

Question

How do differing international, legal, and scholarly approaches to defining Indigenous Peoples reflect broader tensions between self-identification and institutional classification?

Post your response in the comment section, then choose another response to reply with your opinion.

Download this Activity