Table ronde : Les défis des peuples autochtones en Amazonie péruvienne face aux activités extractives (Madrid, 24/04/2014)

La Maison des Amériques de Madrid organise une table ronde sur « Les défis des peuples amazoniens du Pérou face aux activités extractives » le 24 avril 2014 à partir de 19 :00, salle Cervantes. Interviendront à cette occasion :

- Oseas Barbarán, président de la Confédération des Nationalités Amazoniennes du Pérou (CONAP)

-Cecilia Flores, avocate et experte des relations e,ntre les peuples autochtones et les entreprises extractives.

-Dolores Pérez Medina, conseillère technique et responsable du Programme Autochtone du service de coopération international espagnol (AECID).

-Concha Domínguez, présidente de l’association WATU Acción Indígena.


Cette rencontre s’inscrit dans le cycle « Fray Bartolomé de las Casas » de la Maison des Amériques qui est destiné à offrir un espace d’expression aux différentes communautés autochtones du continent américain.

L’entrée est libre dans les limites des places disponibles

Les débats se réaliseront en espagnol


Plus d’informations

source : redial-ceisal

Publié dans Environnement, industries extractives, Ressources naturelles, Territoire | Tagué , , , , , , , , , , | Poster un commentaire

Compte-rendu (en anglais) de la conférence internationale : "Education, Learning and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights: What knowledge, skills and languages for sustainable livelihoods?- Tromsø, Norvège, 2-4 Avril 2014

Publication d’un compte-rendu en anglais de la conférence internationale : "Education, Learning and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights: What knowledge, skills and languages for sustainable livelihoods? qui a eu lieu à Tromsø en Norvège, du 2 au4 Avril 2014. Les auteurs du compte-rendu sont Jennifer Hays et Irène Bellier (SOGIP) et Torjer A. Olsen (Forum for development cooperation with indigenous peoples).

Cette conférence internationale organisée conjointement par SOGIP et le Forum for Development Cooperation with Indigenous Peoples (Tromsø, Norvège) visait à présenter les enjeux que représentent les questions d’éducation pour les autochtones.


fdcip_2014_via-1-14e2eWe wish to express our gratitude to all of those who traveled great distances and took time out of busy schedules and away from their families and homes in order to join us this week in Tromsø to discuss the complex issues of Education, Learning and Indigenous Rights, with particular attention to what kinds of knowledge, skills and languages people need to create sustainable livelihoods. We chose the title of this conference with the goal of drawing out the links between “education” and the right of indigenous people to determine their own livelihood strategies and development pathways, and the fact that access to quality education is a “right” in and of itself. Reflections on these themes were offered throughout this conference. The discussions also captured the complexity of the issue of “education,” including what it is for and what kind people want, and what kind of approach to take. One thing that is very clear is that there are no simple solutions, no “quick-fixes” and no one model that can apply to all situations.

Summary by Jennifer Hays and Irène Bellier (SOGIP) and Torjer A. Olsen (Forum for development cooperation with indigenous peoples)

Nonetheless, there are clear patterns in the experiences of indigenous peoples with education, and clear guidelines for ameliorating the situation. Keynote speaker Jannie Lasimbang, the leader of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) study on education identified issues that are globally cross-cutting for indigenous peoples, including overall low success rates in mainstream schools, ongoing discrimination (perpetuated in part by schools) and loss of language. As Lasimbang and other speakers pointed out, Indigenous Peoples’ rights to education are clearly outlined in international documents; it is most clearly expressed in article 14 of the UNDRIP, which specifies three points:

 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning.

 2) Indigenous individuals, particularly children, have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State without discrimination.

 3) States shall, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, take effective measures, in order for indigenous individuals, particularly children, including those living outside their communities, to have access, when possible, to an education in their own culture and provided in their own language.

Thus the right to equal access to “mainstream” systems, as well as the right to establish alternative community-based projects, are both put forward in this and other indigenous rights mechanisms. As became very clear at the conference, this is not an “either/or” question. These are not separate concerns – they are intertwined in complex ways and the specific configuration of individual or community needs will vary depending on numerous factors, including available economic opportunities, local cultural and linguistic dynamics, and individual and community preferences, among others. Access to western/dominant knowledge is necessary, as is the recognition and validation of traditional knowledge and language. Many participants spoke of the need to bridge formal and indigenous systems of education – although this can be difficult because of the rigid requirements of mainstream systems based on “schooling” (Silvia Macedo).

This conference approached education in a very broad sense, as the intergenerational transfer of knowledge – it is not only about schooling. In this definition, education is at the foundation of many other things, including the reproduction of language, culture and values, and preparation for life in a particular community and in a larger globalized world. Education is linked to other rights of indigenous peoples; including rights to language and culture, to livelihood, to self-determination (Jens Dahl). In particular the link between the rights to education and land was noted in various ways by different speakers. For example, in order to communicate traditional knowledge, indigenous peoples need access to the physical spaces – to their traditional lands (Sheila Aikman). In addition, indigenous peoples need access to information, understanding, languages, and international discourses, in order to contest their dispossession of land and to advocate for their rights (Lorelou Desjardins of the Rainforest Foundation of Norway, RFN; Live Bjørge, SAIH).

Education beyond Schooling

One theme that surfaced repeatedly throughout the conference, as noted above, was the problem with a narrow definition of education as schooling. In general, school focuses on a very specific set of skills, and these are not always – or even usually – those that match the aspirations, opportunities, or realities of indigenous communities. Furthermore, the history of most indigenous communities with school has been destructive. Indigenous participants in the conference emphasized this problematic relationship, describing schooling as a tool for assimilation (Kuela Kiema) and a form of colonization (Pedro Moye Noza), noting that school has deprived people of their traditional knowledge (June Oscar), emphasizing writing at the expense of oral transition of knowledge (Machi Jorge Quilaqueo) and devaluing the traditions, knowledge and values of indigenous peoples (Karl Kristian Olsen). Svein Lund described the norewegianization period of education, which had the express goal of assimilating Sami and others into Norwegian culture and language; this also paralleled a major under-representation of Sami peoples and culture in the mainstream curriculum (Kajsa Kemi Gjerpe).

In very many cases, education-as-schooling becomes a process of “deskilling” indigenous communities, as their own knowledge(s), languages, values, strengths, stories, capacities – are ignored, downplayed or even denigrated within formal education settings – many examples of how this happens were given throughout the conference. As a few presenters also recognized, some indigenous individuals have been able to succeed within these systems, and have gone on to become important community leaders and advocates for indigenous rights (Tatiana Bulgakova). This is not to be undervalued, and support for students to succeed in the mainstream system is absolutely necessary (Sidsel Saugestad). But those who succeed are a still a small minority of indigenous students. For the vast majority, the trade-off of participating in the mainstream system is not a very good “deal.” There are enormous barriers to getting a degree or other qualifications, and also to getting employment. Indigenous youth are often faced with a lack of options in the mainstream economy, or in their own communities. What kind of education is needed to meet the needs of indigenous communities?


Several different models for approaches to indigenous education were presented at the conference. One general approach is support for indigenous students who attend mainstream schools, including: financial support, special support for indigenous students in mainstream classrooms, and through better representation of indigenous communities’ language, culture, values and realities in the classroom (Ellen-Rose Kambel, Kuela Kiema). In some cases (as described by Serena Heckler from UNESCO) books that describe indigenous knowledge systems in both the indigenous and dominant languages have been created for use in local schools. Such approaches also can be used to educate non-indigenous students, and sensitize them to local and global indigenous concerns.

Alternative models were also elaborated; and many presenters emphasized the importance of developing educational approaches that reflect the traditional teaching and learning styles of indigenous communities. There are enormous bodies of research on education that increasingly confirm the effectiveness of the knowledge transmission strategies that tend to be used by indigenous peoples. Although this conference was not focused specifically on describing effective pedagogical approaches, some points were touched upon. For example, Jannie Lasimbang described three characteristics that surfaced during the EMRIP study on education: participatory learning; a holistic approach and a nurturing environment that encourages mutual trust. Research has shown that all of these are connected with effective learning strategies. Other presenters mentioned respect for the autonomy of children and recognition of their innate love for learning (Eva Marion Johannessen); the role of the teacher as facilitators for students to create their own knowledge (Alta Blandford) and several noted the critical importance of community participation at all stages of project design and implementation.

The importance of education in the mother tongue is also widely accepted as a pedagogical ideal, though this option is not available to all indigenous students. Various facets of language and how it relates to education were discussed at the conference, including the role of education in language revitalization, and possibilities for developing alternative models of indigenous language learning (Trond Trosterud); the difficulty of implementing mother tongue education in highly multilingual societies (Isabelle Leglise, Valelia Muni Toke, Jacques Vernaudon; Marie Salaün); and the fundamental importance of recognition of and respect for students home language within education settings – even when the language of instruction might be a dominant language.

Specific community-based education models that were described included mobile schools, village schools, jungle schools, and schools in the rainforest (Tatiana Bulgakova, Bruce Parcher, Lorelou Desjardins, Silvia Macedo, Eva Marion Johannessen), and models based upon the oral tradition of storytelling, and “inquiry-based learning” (Machi Jorge Quilaqueo, June Oscar, Kim Anderson). Other, broader approaches included the development of regionalized indigenous curriculums at various levels (Vuokko Hirvonen, Luis Enrique Lopez, Pedro Moye Noza); and the creation of indigenous universities (Asta Mitkijá Balto, Alta Blandford Hooker) and programmes in mainstream universities dedicated specifically to indigenous studies (Bjørg Evjen, University of Tromsø). These approaches varied greatly, but they all had in common an approach that acknowledges a diversity of approaches to education, as well as cultural and linguistic diversity, and a deep respect for local knowledge and values. For all of these approaches, the cultivation of qualified indigenous teachers was also central to success – and also proved to be a challenge across the board.

 Inspiration and Challenges

One aspect of the conference that was mentioned by some presenters – and commented on frequently in breaks – was a rare sense of shared understanding about the realities of indigenous communities and the deep problems they confront in formal education – as well as a shared respect for the knowledge(s), languages, skills and traditional education systems of these communities. Experiencing this sense of “community,” as one participant put it,, was deeply inspiring and has reminded us that we are part of a larger movement.

At the local level, however, there is often a sense of swimming against a powerful, sometimes overwhelming, current. There are many challenges, both to improving the mainstream system, and to implementing alternatives that meet the needs and aspirations of indigenous communities. Even in areas where bi-cultural, pluri-cultural, and multilingual, education are accepted in government policy and practice, there is a critical gap between the rhetoric of good intention, and the practical realities of implementation (Luis Enrique Lopez; Jacques Vernaudon); there is also a lack of awareness about what “rights-based” development or education means in practice (Serena Heckler, UNESCO). Education in most parts of the world is moving towards an increasingly standardized model, evaluated by measurable “outcomes” that are based on dominant languages, forms of knowledge, and social structures, and that do not capture the complexity of the linguistic and social landscape – nor of available economic options.

The model that privileges “schooling” as the only form of “education” as described above, constructs alternatives as “inferior,” making it difficult to recognize and include indigenous knowledge and languages, to provide alternative training and qualifications for indigenous teachers (Ellen-Rose Kambel, Bruce Parcher), and to access financial and political support for alternative education endeavors. There is a fear that allowing for alternative education will result in increased marginalization for indigenous peoples. In some cases, indigenous peoples themselves resist alternatives that might be seen as inferior, and they insist upon full access to dominant languages and education systems, especially in areas where people have experienced institutionalized “inferior education” under racist colonial policies, such as south Africa, or the south Pacific (Marie Salaün). These perceptions of inferiority can make it very difficult to argue for alternative projects, despite the clear pedagogical advantages and support from international human rights tools.

 Development cooperation:

How can indigenous communities access education that meets their diverse needs? What kind of development assistance is needed from the outside? One important point that was emphasized throughout this conference is the need for projects to be initiated, defined, and constructed by indigenous people. It is not only a matter of consultation – indigenous peoples’ right to control their own education processes must be recognized.

In some cases, indigenous peoples may already be in a position to do this. However, in many cases, partnership is needed. Who should be the partners? As several presenters made clear, ideally the state should provide the various kinds of education we have been talking about, as outlined in the UNDRIP. But governments are not always in a position to do this; furthermore the tendency of government towards standardization and school-based models also creates the problems noted above. Other partners are needed to support alternative educational system for indigenous peoples. The challenge is finding funding for such projects. Resources are limited and Indigenous Peoples are not currently a “development priority” for Norway or other countries. Education is a priority area, however, and it was suggested at the conference that targeting education for indigenous peoples may be a way to channel more support in this direction (SAIH).

Examples of development cooperation presented at the conference were diverse and included support for mobile schools and village schools (Vidar Wie Østlie, NAMAS); schools in the rainforests of Indonesia (RFN) and Brazil (Eva Marion Johannessen) and support for indigenous education projects in Central and South America (SAIH). Cooperation between universities can also be a way to provide support for indigenous students to gain entry into higher education institutions and gain qualifications that they see as relevant (Sidsel Saugestad).

The presentations on development cooperation emphasized the need for continuous and flexible long-term support in collaboration with communities –driven by their aspirations. In particular, emphasis was placed upon the training of indigenous teachers, and the importance of finding bridges between indigenous culture and formal education in a contemporary world.

 Culture, Community – Relationships

 “Traditional education can be described as a life-long pedagogical process and an intergenerational transfer of knowledge aimed at maintaining a flourishing and harmonious society or community”  – Jannie Lasimbang

Although it is not reflected in the title, we have been reminded throughout the conference that the need for a focus on education is not only about enforcing “rights” in legal systems; and that it is not only about livelihoods and getting a job. It is also about culture, spirituality, community, ways of doing and being in the world, stories, songs, beliefs, values, and – as came up more than once – about love. It is about relationships – between children and parents and elders; within a community, and with the wider world; between people and the environment – and about the ways that we live, as individuals and communities, on this planet that we share. These aspects of education are rarely included in funding proposals or political documents – but as we heard at this conference they are fundamental to human existence and are a crucial part of intergenerational communication, and of the continuity of human societies.


Although the focus of indigenous education efforts is most often upon how to overcome the challenges that indigenous peoples face in entering into education systems that are defined by dominant groups, some presenters pointed out that those from the dominant groups also have a lot to learn from indigenous peoples. First and foremost, people in mainstream society need better understanding of the reality of modern indigenous societies that live “next door” and which are so often depicted in stereotypical ways.

Furthermore, rights to Indigenous education are not only about “allowing” indigenous people to have their “own” education systems. It would be enough if they were – this is clearly a right enshrined in international mechanisms. But the issues involved in education affect all of us. Working to support indigenous education efforts should not be seen as charity – but as an investment in the future of humanity in general as we search for more sustainable ways to live on the planet, for ways to improve education for everyone, for ways to live in community with each other. There is also a need to recognize the diverse and varied approaches to education employed by indigenous peoples as viable models that the mainstream can also learn from.



Publié dans Culture, Education, Histoire, identité | Poster un commentaire

ARTICLE EN LIGNE : « Les langues hors de la loi : langues mineures ou en danger en Inde »

Annie Montaut « Les langues hors de la loi : langues mineures ou en danger en Inde » , INALCO /CNRS-SEDYL(labex EFL), A paraître dans Actes de l’ouvrage issu du Colloque Loi de la langue/Langue de la loi (IEA Nantes 2012), (Editions Fayard) sous la direction d’Alain Supiot.

Résumé :

L’Inde est souvent représentée comme le porte-étendard flamboyant de la vitalité du multilinguisme, et parfois aussi comme un « cimetière de langues » : l’exploration de la tension entre ces deux représentations contradictoires permet d’amorcer une réflexion sur les minorités linguistiques en Inde, les dispositions officielles qui les encadrent et les réalités sociales qui en sont indissociables, ainsi que sur l’impact du changement de dynamique dans la gestion du répertoire plurilingue [1 La notion de minorité linguistique : potentiel de clivage ou capital culturel menacé ? 2 Les dispositions légales et leurs limites 3 Ségrégation linguistique et exclusion]

Mots clef : langues en danger, minorité linguistique, langues tribales, plurilinguisme spontané, hétérogénéité fonctionnelle, langues indiennes


Publié dans Culture, Histoire, identité | Tagué , , | Poster un commentaire

Séance 6 du séminaire SOGIP : Les enjeux de la cartographie des territoires autochtones (Bolivie, Canada, Chili, Brésil, Congo, Bangladesh), jeudi 10 avril 2014

La 6ème séance du séminaire de l’équipe SOGIP «Perspectives comparatives sur les droits des peuples autochtones» coordonné par Irène Bellier et Laurent Lacroix, intitulée : «Les enjeux de la cartographie des territoires autochtones», aura lieu le jeudi 10 avril 2014.

EHESS bâtiment Le France, 190-198 avenue de France 75013 Paris-Salle du Conseil A, rez de chaussée -1.

Séance 6 : 10 avril 2014 : Les enjeux de la cartographie des territoires autochtones (Bolivie, Canada, Chili, Brésil, Congo, Bangladesh)

La cartographie connaît un regain de popularité dans le traitement des questions autochtones. Qu’il s’agisse de définir des territoires aux fins de reconnaissance, ou d’identifier les ressources qu’ils contiennent, pour les protéger ou pour les exploiter, les autochtones sont aujourd’hui conduits par divers moyens à représenter leurs territoires avec de nouvelles techniques et selon des modes de représentation tout aussi nouveaux – principalement destinés à plusieurs types d’interlocuteurs (ONG, société civile, Etat, entreprises). Nous examinerons la nature de certains projets cartographiques concernant des territoires autochtones, les modalités de fabrication de cartes, leurs usages et leurs finalités pour évaluer l’importance de tels outils dans la mobilisation des peuples autochtones pour la revendication ou la défense territoriale. Nous nous intéressons aux effets multiples de la cartographie des mondes autochtones dans la perspective ouverte aujourd’hui, et toujours problématique, d’un monde entièrement balisé.

Intervenants – séance 6 :

Irène Hirt (Département de géographie et d’environnement de l’Université de Genève) – Cartes et revendications territoriales autochtones : controverses et paradoxes

François-Michel Letourneau & Fabrice Dubertret (CREDA-IHEAL) – Rendre explicite une présence invisible : vers un atlas mondial des territoires autochtones

Samuel Diéval (Rainforest Foundation) – Cartographie pour les droits dans le Bassin du Congo

Nirupa Dewan (enseignante, Ligue des Droits de l’Homme du Bangladesh) et Paul Nicolas (géographe, Maison Méditerranéenne des Sciences de l’Homme d’Aix-Marseille)

Résumés – séance 6 :

Irène Hirt (Département de géographie et d’environnement de l’Université de Genève) – Cartes et revendications territoriales autochtones : controverses et paradoxes

La cartographie en contexte autochtone (produite par ou pour des organisations ou des communautés autochtones) poursuit plusieurs objectifs : défendre des droits à la terre et au territoire ainsi que des droits pour le contrôle et l’accès aux ressources naturelles ; revitaliser la culture et l’identité autochtones, entre autres en favorisant des processus de réappropriation de l’histoire, des savoirs locaux, et du lien culturel et spirituel au territoire ; décoloniser les imaginaires et les récits hégémoniques de la nation et du territoire. Cette cartographie, qui mobilise principalement le langage, les techniques et les modes de représentation de la cartographie étatique moderne, porte toutefois à controverse, aussi bien aux yeux des individus et des groupes autochtones concernés que des chercheurs œuvrant dans ce domaine de recherche-action. Elle est considérée comme un outil à "double-tranchant" : d’un côté, elle s’avère quasiment incontournable pour défendre des droits fonciers ou territoriaux au sein des Etats concernés, favorisant en outre, dans bien des cas, des processus d’« empowerment » social et territorial ; de l’autre, de par son inscription dans un contexte de domination politique et culturelle, elle tend simultanément à imposer des présupposés spatiaux, épistémologiques et ontologiques aux peuples autochtones, fragilisant leurs propres modes de construction du savoir et leurs propres territorialités. Les principaux enjeux, paradoxes et controverses autour de cette cartographie seront examinés dans la première partie de cet exposé. Dans la seconde, des exemples concrets seront proposés, sur la base de plusieurs expériences de recherche menées au Chili, en Bolivie et au Canada.

François-Michel Letourneau & Fabrice Dubertret (CREDA-IHEAL) – Rendre explicite une présence invisible : vers un atlas mondial des territoires autochtones

Le territoire se place au coeur des sociétés autochtones. Si la reconnaissance de droits territoriaux différenciés est indispensable au maintien de l’intégrité culturelle et économique de ces peuples, elle reste subordonnée aux Etats englobant ces sociétés. Or, ces mêmes Etats voient souvent dans la reconnaissance de droits territoriaux différenciés un frein à leur développement, d’autant plus que ces terres sont souvent riches en ressources naturelles. Ainsi, les réponses des Etats aux revendications territoriales autochtones présentent une grande variabilité.
Par une approche géographique de la question autochtone, centrée sur la question territoriale, le présent projet vise à l’élaboration d’un Atlas mondial recensant les territoires reconnus, revendiqués, ou occupés par les peuples autochtones. La mise en place d’une catégorisation globale des régimes de reconnaissance territoriales rendra possible une comparaison mondiale des réponses offertes par les Etats. Aussi, une approche collaborative permettra la confrontation de différentes sources d’information, telles que les informations officielles des Etats, les apports des ONG et les contributions directes des peuples autochtones, dressant un aperçu complet de la situation et des controverses entourant la question territoriale autochtone.

Samuel Diéval (Rainforest Foundation) – Cartographie pour les droits dans le Bassin du Congo

Deuxième par la taille après l’Amazone, la forêt tropicale humide du bassin du Congo couvre plus de 180 millions d’hectares et s’étend à travers toute la République Démocratique du Congo (RDC), la majorité de la République du Congo, le sud-est du Cameroun, le sud de la République Centrafricaine, le Gabon et la Guinée équatoriale. Cette zone constitue un régulateur vital du climat de toute la région, un puits de carbone d’importance mondiale et une vaste réserve de biodiversité. D’après certaines sources, l’Homme serait présent dans le Bassin du Congo depuis plus de 50 000 ans et la population, essentiellement rurale, y est aujourd’hui estimée à 50 millions d’habitants. Elle comprend environ un demi-million d’autochtones chasseurs-cueilleurs couramment appelés « Pygmées », la plupart menant encore, et au moins partiellement, un mode de vie nomade. La forêt constitue une ressource absolument vitale pour les populations locales. Elle leur apporte nourriture, eau, refuge, pharmacopée tout en représentant un élément essentiel de leur culture et de leur sphère spirituelle. De façon générale, les régimes fonciers des pays du bassin du Congo confèrent à l’Etat la propriété de l’ensemble du territoire national. Ceci implique que les communautés locales et autochtones n’ont pratiquement aucun contrôle ou titre légal reconnu sur les territoires qu’elles occupent traditionnellement. Aujourd’hui, une grande partie des forêts de la région a été allouée à titre de concessions à des sociétés forestières, agricoles et minières, dont la plupart doivent encore renforcer leurs considérations sociales et environnementales. Il est largement reconnu que l’absence de reconnaissance des modes coutumiers d’occupation et d’utilisation des terres et ressources forestières est source de conflits et d’insécurité et peut entrainer l’augmentation de la pauvreté, la destruction de l’environnement et la violation des droits de l’homme et des peuples.

La cartographie participative est un outil qui permet aux communautés forestières et peuples autochtones de mettre en évidence avec précision les terres qu’ils occupent et utilisent, et qu’ils peuvent utiliser pour sécuriser des droits sur les terres et les ressources forestières. Rainforest Foundation UK et ses organisations partenaires dans le bassin du Congo (Organisations non gouvernementales, agences gouvernementales, institutions spécialisées) mettent en œuvre des projets de cartographie participative dans le bassin du Congo depuis plus de 15 ans et ont développé des approches méthodologiques et des outils technologiques, comme l’Accompagnement des Communautés à la Cartographie de leurs Espaces de vie Traditionnels (ACCET) et la base de données géo référencée, pour accompagner les communautés forestières dans la promotion de leurs droits aux terres et aux ressources.

Nirupa Dewan (enseignante, Ligue des Droits de l’Homme du Bangladesh) et Paul Nicolas (géographe, Maison Méditerranéenne des Sciences de l’Homme d’Aix-Marseille)

Ils nous présenteront la situation des Jummas aujourd’hui (Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh), à travers un ensemble de cartes. Ils montreront comment ils ont été, à partir du XIX° siècle mis à l’écart, puis en partie dépossédés du contrôle de leur territoire à partir du milieu du XX° siècle.


Publié dans Culture, Environnement, Histoire, identité, industries extractives, Mouvements autochtones, Territoire | Tagué , , , , , | Poster un commentaire

Séminaire Gouverner le Vivant au Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle: philosophies autochtones, politique de la connaissance et "Buen vivir"

Originally posted on Réseau Peuples Autochtones:

La prochaine séance du aura lieu le v endredi 11 avril, de 10h30 à 12h30, au MNHN, dans le grand amphi d’entomologie, 45 Rue Buffon, 75005 Paris.

National Geographic, July 1977. Gimi people of Papua New Guinea: Linked by an “umbilical cord” at a ritual, a young man and his mother dramatize maternal influence, rarely acknowledged publicly.

Ontologies as emergent: Indigenous philosophical propositions concerning the past, the present, and possible futures

Paige West (Columbia University, New York)

Discutant : Philippe Descola (Collège de France)

Much has been said of late about the multiple forms of knowing, being, seeing, feeling, and narrating worlds among people and peoples with whom anthropologists work. In this paper I push this conversation forward by asking about the emergent natures of ontological propositions. I do this based on eighteen years of research on the island of New Guinea. Gimi speaking peoples in the Eastern Highlands of…

Voir l'original 151 mots de plus

Publié dans Uncategorized | Poster un commentaire

OUVRAGE : « The Politics of ethnicity in India, Nepal and China »

Politics of ethnicityParution de l’ouvrage collectif The Politics of ethnicity in India, Nepal and China, co-dirigé par Marine Carrin, Pralay Kanungo et Gérard Toffin ; Primus Books 2013

Présentation de l’éditeur

The indigenous population, with their rich culture and heritage, represent an important component of Indian and Himalayan civilizations. Politics of Ethnicity in India, Nepal and China  reviews the social, cultural and political processes that have shaped these indigenous societies in India, Nepal and China in recent years.  The ethnic minorities, legally recognized in India and Nepal have emerged as powerful groups influencing the political imagery in both these countries. In Nepal, the staggering diversity of the Himalayan population poses a problem for the authorities. They include economically and culturally diverse groups, spread throughout the region. The state, partially inspired by India is now looking at institutionalizing procedures to integrate the indigenous people as citizens. In India, the threat of ethnic conflict has driven the Indian state to recognize new states and form autonomous district councils, paving way for an asymmetrical federalism where federal units are being devolved special powers. The acknowledgement of indigenous languages and scripts by the Constitution of India has offered the possibility for janjatis/adivasis to assert themselves. Likewise, the recent policies in favour of ethnic minority groups and their culture in Nepal have generated various initiatives from local communities to develop their often endangered culture. Both in India and Nepal, these changes impact the discourse held by leaders who are now claiming a history and culture for their own group. The construction of an identity through narratives, village theatre and other cultural expressions have  become part of the subtle process of reinventing tradition.  The Politics of Ethnicity in India, Nepal and China analyzes the reshaping of ethnic boundaries through acculturation, conversion, education, and religious movements, in times of conflict as well as in times of peace, highlighting how the indigenous people of India and Nepal frame a new sense of identity informed by ‘reinvented’ custom. This may offer a way to conciliate self-governance and democracy. In India, development programmes launched in different regions by the states have led to further deprivation of indigenous people and conflicts over environmental issues. This volume enables the reader to grasp the reformulation of identities influenced by cultural strategies of empowerment.  As mentioned earlier, in both India and Nepal, the tribal has been considered a political agent in the national imagination. Besides, it is not by chance that current concern over biodiversity in a globalizing world has in many ways laid hope in tribal practices which are regarded as sustainable. Yet biodiversity also comes with the promise of a different lifestyle contrasting with the homogenized consumerism which dominates today’s capitalist economy. Adivasi/janajati societies have often developed a policy of resisting global, capital, savage and corrupt industrial exploitation. For instance, they maintain ‘sacred groves’ as religious emblems of indigenous knowledge in central India and in the Khasi and Garo hills. This volume also discusses the progressive discovery of tribal art and its present status in the national context. It traces the story of how these art forms came to be recognized as such, underlining factors such as state patronage, which played an important role in this process. Retracing the path these artefacts took from local workshops to craft-exhibitions, museums and shops in the capital of Orissa State and on to those of the Indian Union capital city (New Delhi).

 Table des matières


Ethnicity in the Margins: Experiments and Experiences-Marine Carrin, Pralay Kanungo and Gérard Toffin

1. Historical Anthropology and ‘The Primitive’: Rethinking the 1931 Census of India -Daniel J. Rycroft

2. Autochthony and Indigeneity in Nepal and the Himalayas-Gérard Toffin

3. The Santal as an Intellectual-Marine Carrin

4. In Defence of their Endangered Life Worlds: The Adivasi Uprisings in Contemporary Odisha-Pralay Kanungo

5. ‘Tribal Artisans’ and Artists, in Odisha: Between Craft Promotion, ‘Ethnic Tourism’ and Indian Primitivism-Raphaël Rousseleau

 6. Surging Between Telangana and Seemandhra: Adivasi Identity and Political Assertion through Manneseema Rashtram (State of Forest Dwellers)-Thanuja Mummidi

7. Resisting Nation-State: Ethnic Upsurge in Post Colonial North-East India-Sajal Nag

8. Promissory Note: Nepal’s Left Movement and the Janajatis-Deepak Thapa

9. Identity Construction among Adivasis of Gujarat after Independence-Satyakam Joshi

10. Cross-Currents: Travelling Shadows of a Conversion in the Naguri Munda Region of Jharkhand-Kaushik Ghosh

 11. From Blood to Scripture, Matharvanam Movement and the Making of Identity among the Sora-Cécile Guillaume-Pey

12. Sagram Murmu and the Formation of a Linguistic Identity-Peter B. Andersen

 13. Expansion of the Public Sphere amidst Market Challenges: Janajati Magazines in Nepal in the 1990s-Pratyoush Onta

14. The Politics of Ethnicity in China and the Process of Homogenization of the Yi Nationality-Aurélie Névot

 15. The Role of the Indigenous Peoples Movement in International Organizations-Irène Bellier

Publié dans Culture, Histoire, identité | Tagué , , , | Poster un commentaire

Séance 5 du séminaire du IIAC-Axe politique consacrée à l’ouvrage « Peuples autochtones dans le monde : les enjeux de la reconnaissance »-jeudi 27 mars 2014

Institut Interdisciplinaire d’Anthropologie du Contemporain : Séminaire de l’axe politique coordonné par Marc Abélès, Lynda Dematteo.

4e jeudi du mois de 17 h à 19 h (salle 8, 105 bd Raspail 75006 Paris), du 23 janvier au 26 juin 2014

La cinquième rencontre aura lieu le 27 mars de 17h à 19h, Salle 8 au 105 bd Raspail

La discussion portera sur le dernier ouvrage d’Irène Bellier

Peuples autochtones dans le monde : les enjeux de la reconnaissance.

Discutantes :

Véronique Boyer (CERMA-Mondes américains),
Dominique Samson (INALCO)

et Christine Laurière (IIAC-LAHIC)

Informations éditoriales

Site L’Harmattan

Ce séminaire transversal entend valoriser les publications des chercheurs de l’IIAC par une série de rencontres autour des derniers ouvrages parus qui traitent directement ou indirectement d’anthropologie du politique. À chaque rencontre, un chercheur de l’IIAC (issu d’une équipe différente de celle de l’auteur) et un chercheur extérieur ouvrent une discussion critique sur l’ouvrage. Ces rencontres ont vocation à faire circuler les savoirs et à esquisser de nouveaux échanges scientifiques autour de questions relevant du politique au sein de l’IIAC et au-delà, tout en donnant une plus grande visibilité aux publications. 

Prochaines séances

22 mai , Sylvie Sagnes et Véronique MouliniéMémoires de la Retirada.

Discutant Nicole Lapierre (IIAC-CEM) et Mari Carmen Rodriguez (Université de Genève)

26 juin , Catherine Neveu et Kathleen CollDisputing Citizenship.

Discutant Jean-Louis Briquet (CESSP, Université Paris 1) et Eleonore Merza (IIAC-LAIOS)


Publié dans Citoyenneté, Constitution/législation nationale, Consultation, Culture, Droit international, Histoire, identité, Institutions internationales, Justice, Mouvements autochtones, Participation politique, Ressources naturelles, Territoire | Poster un commentaire