“My conclusion is that this fallacious anthropology cannot provide reliable guidelines for the resolution of contemporary social problems.”

The paper takes on the ideology of the indigenous peoples’ movement, a global social movement that has booked remarkable political successes in the past decade. I show that the ideology of the movement relies on a discredited anthropological theory. Supporters of the indigenous peoples’ movement responded, and a far-ranging debate ensued, which extended to cover the political role of anthropology. The paper also raised difficult questions about universal human rights, and that has interested some readers.

The paper contributes rather to a theoretical discussion about some key concepts in anthropology and their use and abuse in political action.

In this podcast audio commentary, Adam Kuper, Professor of Anthropology at Brunel University, discusses the ideology of the indigenous peoples’ movement, a global social movement that has booked remarkable political successes in the past decade.  Podcast formats: mp3 | wma

My paper was designed to put in question the very category of "indigenous peoples." The indigenous peoples movement claims that the identity and the interests of "indigenous peoples" are the same all over the world. This is apparently because the San in the Kalahari desert, Pygmies in the Ituri forest, Inuit in Alaska, etc., were once nomadic hunters and gatherers.

But what else do these people have in common, particularly after many generations of colonialism and social change? I suggested that the presumed similarity of these peoples is an illusion, and that the illusion is a legacy of discredited beliefs of 19th century anthropologists.

The category "indigenous people" is a euphemism for what used to be termed "primitive people." I also argued that contemporary descendants of "indigenous peoples" cannot be identified by any cultural test, and so, unfortunately, racial tests are applied.

A recent example is the decision of the Cherokee Nation, in March 2007, to revoke the tribal citizenship of nearly 3,000 people who are descended from black slaves owned by Cherokee in the 19th century.

My conclusion is that this fallacious anthropology cannot provide reliable guidelines for the resolution of contemporary social problems. Whatever the political inspiration, the conventional lines of argument currently used to justify "indigenous" land claims, for instance, rely on obsolete anthropological notions and on a romantic and false ethnographic vision. Fostering essentialist ideologies of culture and identity, they may have dangerous political consequences.