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:
- Cultural
complexity – from simple to sophisticated
societies
- Historical
sequence – who arrived first
- Political
marginalization – power dynamics between groups
- 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:
- Strong
ties to ancestral lands and natural resources
- Self-identification
as Indigenous, and recognition by others as a distinct group
- Use
of a native language, often different from the national language
- Existence
of customary social and political systems
- 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.