The concept “indigenous” is a product of eurocentrism and coloniality when applied globally

A. The Evolution of Conceptual Obfuscation: From America and Oceania to Asia and Africa One scholar claims that “one of the most remarkable feats in (international law’s) self-construction has been its overwhelming Eurocentrism.”29 Thus is the case with indigenous peoples. Consequently, [t]he current concept or the theory of 'indigenous' has been shaped by the dialogue between academics and activists of Western Europe and North America, as well as the power structures of Western Europe which lent their support to the concept in and outside the UN. The concept, therefore, has its origins in a colonial historical perspective. When it is applied to the people of the Americas, Australia and New Zealand it creates no confusion, but when the same concept is applied to the peoples of Asia and Africa, it creates confusion.30 Other terms have since been used to refer to indigenous peoples such as aborigines, autochthones, natives, first nations, first peoples, or original peoples. 31 In the Northern Hemisphere and in Oceania, indigeneity simply means occupation predating European settlers and that indigenous peoples are necessarily colonized peoples.32 In these regions, there is no issue that every people who was there prior to colonial contact was autochthonous. The story of the acceptance of indigenousness, however, took a different turn when indigenous organizations expanded its conceptual coverage to peoples in Asia and Africa. Prevailing definitions of indigenous peoples from a colonial perspective restricts the concept of indigeneity to peoples in the Americas and Australasia. It excludes similar groups in Africa and Asia whose oppression was at the hands of natives of neighboring territories who assumed a position of political dominance in the aftermath of nationbuilding. In both continents, claims of territorial precedence can be scathed by the fact that history itself cannot state with final certitude who came first in a place.33 If indigeneity refers to aboriginality, then all peoples in Asia, after the colonials have shipped out, would be considered indigenous.34 Any definition or approach to segregate the indigenous from the non-indigenous in Asia or Africa requiring chronological territorial precedence overlooks the early diaspora and migration of different groups. Claims of prior occupancy are hardly fool-proof in view of recent anthropological and historical evidence, which casts a cloud of doubt on previously held truths. For instance, questions have been raised if some pastoralist groups asserting indigenous status are the aboriginals of the territories they now occupy.35 Additionally, some groups wearing indigenous badges have never been subjected to European colonization.36 However, there groups have suffered from structural oppression tantamount to internal colonialism either by neighboring countries or by states within which they were assimilated.37 Thus, while international law progressed in terms of developing norms to oversee domestic treatment of indigenous peoples, translation of these norms into actual protection became a casualty of theoretical debates. Asian and African states exploited conceptual nebulousness by dismissing indigeneity as something alien to their regions, 38 claiming they have no indigenous peoples.39 They condemned its application in their regions as neo-colonialism,40 an imposition of universalism rooted in Western imperialism. Most Asian states abjure the term opting to adopt ethnic minorities,41 tribal groups,42 small nations,43 scheduled tribes,44 or hill tribes45 to eschew the burden of recognizing collective rights inherent in peoplehood. Thailand dismisses its indigenous peoples as migrants. 46 As a consequence, thousands are denied registration, which in turn results in denial of access to social services.47 Indigenous peoples in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and other countries in Southeast Asia are similarly circumstanced.48 China makes the same denial49 and prefers to use the term minority ethnic groups or minorities with the categorical characterization that they are not indigenous.50 India insists on equating indigenous with autochthonous, recognizing all Indians as indigenous since it is impossible to say who settled first due to its history of epochs of migration, cultural amalgamation, and dispersion.51 Echoing India’s position, China claims that all its nationalities have lived within its borders for ages, and since all of them are aboriginal, it has no indigenous issues.52