MODULE 2

Who are the Indigenous People?

Why is there a need for definition?

The flexible definitional approaches to indigenous people can enhance the human rights protection of IP
groups and communities (Corntassel, 2003). Consequently, the United Nations Declaration on the rights of
Indigenous Peoples strongly suggests that even with the absence of a formal definition, the rights of IPs need
to be upheld
and protected.
The International Working Group for Indigenous Affairs outlined three primary rationales for a clear and well-
defined conceptualization of Indigenous Peoples. First, is that self-identification is an essential component
of the IPs’ sense of identity. Thus, without a well-defined and universally acceptable definition and criterion,
IPs self-identification is indefinite and doubtful (Corntassel, 2003; Kingsbury, 1998). Second, it will be easier
for them to be accepted as belonging to the IP classification, which is necessary to assert their collective
rights as a group and advance the group’s particular needs (Bowen, 2000; Barsh, 1986). Contrary to other
ethnic minorities in a country, IPs are considered to suffer a higher level of marginalization and
discrimination. Third, a clear definition of “indigenous peoples” will provide IPs the opportunity to be heard
and seen by the local and international government and enable them to assert their right to self-
determination. This right is substantial in their collective effort to preserve, develop and transmit to future
generations their ancestral claim, which is home to their ethnic identity (Kingsbury, 1998).

The underlying issues in the naming of indigenous peoples groups is that, most often, the name associated
with them is also employed as a derogatory term to address them. In the case of the Aetas in Pampanga,
they are referred to as “baluga” or black people, similar to the case of the Sama people being called “siyamal”
or dirty.The existence of the derogatory remarks and other forms of discrimination necessitates the need for
a well-defined conceptualization of indigenous people.

Defining Indigenous People

The word “indigenous” comes from the Latin word “indigen” which means native or original inhabitant—an
idea that became popular in the 17th century. Thus, the most common understanding of the concept suggests
that they are people who are the original inhabitants of the land.

According to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the term “indigenous” has been
used continuously, whether as a form of collective names for categorization or as representation to the legal
issues in the corresponding state that governs them. They are most often mentioned as tribal people or
ethnic groups or communities. Still, there are different names associated with indigenous people in different
countries such as Canada, where they are referred to as first/people or nations; in Australia where they are
aboriginals; in India where they are adivasi; in Nepal as janajati; and in Indonesia and Malaysia where they
are referred to as orang asli which means tribal people, or bumiputera which means son of soil.
a. Asian Development Bank Framework
The Asian Development Bank (2002) observed that there are two primary similarities in the existing
definitions of indigenous peoples groups. First is that they are descended from population groups that lived
in a particular geographic area before a modern state, territories and borders were defined. Second, they
maintain unique cultural identities, or their social, economic, cultural and political institutions are different
and separate from the mainstream or dominant societies. Consequently, the ADB defines IPs as “those with
a social or cultural identity distinct from the dominant or mainstream society”; hence, these characteristics
put them at a disadvantage in the process of development.

b. International Labor Organization Framework

The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples' Rights in Practice: A Guide to ILO Convention, Number 169 provides the
criteria to separate the concept “tribal people” from IPs. The tribal people are regarded first as those with
culture, social organizations, economic conditions and way of life that are different from other segments of
the national population. Second, tribal people are those who have their own traditions and customs and/or
legal recognition. The Indigenous People on the other hand are characterized first by their historical
continuity, and their societies thriving during pre-conquest and colonization. Second is the territorial
connection and their ancestors inhabiting the country or a region of the country of which they have a claim.
Third, they have distinct social, economic, cultural and political institutions and retain either some or all of
their own institutions. Notice that the primary difference between tribal people and IPs is their historical
continuity and
territorial connection. This criterion has also been exemplified in the working definition of the United
Nations, Asian Development Bank and other relevant international organizations that cater to the rights of
the IPs. It is necessary to explore further our understanding of historical continuity.

c. United Nations Framework

The Martinez Cobo’s Report to the UN Sub-Commission on the Prevention of the Discrimination of Minorities
in 1986 provides what can be considered as the most quoted working definition of Indigenous People. The
Martinez Cobo Study also highlights the importance of historical continuity in its definition of IPs. They are
those:
1. Having historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed in the territories;
2. That consider themselves distinct from other sectors of those societies that are now prevailing on those
territories or part of them;
3. That form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and
transmit to future generations their ancestral territories and their ethnic identity;
4. Whose preservation, development and transmission are the basis of their continued existence as peoples
who are in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system.

Chairperson-Rapporteur Madame Erica-Irene Daes of United Nations’ Working Group on Indigenous

Populations designates IPs as those:
1. Descendants of groups that were in the territory of the country at the time when other groups of different
cultures or ethnic origins arrived there;
2. Isolated or excluded from other segments of the country's population and so have preserved almost intact
the customs and traditions of their ancestors; and
3. Distant from or alien to the national, social and cultural characteristics of the State structure that claims
them.

According to the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, the historical continuity discussed by the
Martinez Cobo Study can be characterized by the following factors:
1. Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them;
2. Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands;
3. Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership
of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, instant loans, lifestyle, etc.);
4. Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication
at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language);
5. Residence in certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world; and
6. Other relevant factors.

Furthermore, Article 1 Section 2 of ILO Convention Number 169 defines the magnitude of the right to self-
identification of tribal or IP groups. Self-identification is considered as a fundamental criterion for whether a
person considers himself or herself as tribal or indigenous. In addition, Jeff Corntassel (2003) remarks that
the question of “Who are indigenous?” can be best answered by self-identification. The indigenous people
themselves can best answer the question. To date, according to the International Labor Organization, there
are approximately 370 million people categorized as belonging to at least 5,000 indigenous groups living in
70 different countries. The data changes from time to time when a new definition or categorizations appears,
because there is still no official definition to date approved by the United Nations and other international
bodies on IPs.

d. The World Health Organization Framework

The World Health Organization primarily aims to advance the health status of indigenous people in the
world. They acknowledge the fact that most IPs’ health status is poorer than non-indigenous population
groups in countries all over the world. In the absence of an official definition from the United Nations, the
WHO provides a modern and inclusive understanding of IPs, which include those who:
1. Identify themselves and are recognized and accepted by their community as indigenous;
2. Demonstrate historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies;
3. Have strong links to territories and surrounding natural resources;
4. Have distinct social, economic or political systems;
5. Maintain distinct languages, cultures and beliefs;
6. Form non-dominant groups of society; and
7. Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and
communities.

e. Scholarly Definitions of Indigenous People

Corntassel (2003) provides a historical development of the conceptualization of the term Indigenous People
in the academe and its implication to the status and condition of these groups. Franke Wilmer is considered
as the first social scientist to examine the condition of IPs in the world and defines IPs first as those with
tradition-based culture; second as those who were politically autonomous before colonization; and third as
those who continued to struggle for the preservation of their cultural integrity, economic self-reliance and
political independence against colonizers and the modern states.
Wilmer and Gerald Alfred and Franke Wilmer teamed up in 1997 to come up with three criteria for a group
to be considered as IP. This was intended to correct the ambiguities provided in Wilmer’s 1993 definition
(Corntassel, 2003). These criteria include the fact that they are descended from the
original inhabitants of the geographic areas they continue to occupy, making them aboriginal. Second, they
intend to live in conformity with their traditionbased cultures, which are evolving. And last, their political
destiny is subjected to policy from outside forces, which refers primarily to the State they belong to. Thus,
their political destiny and existence is beyond their control.

In his definition of IPs in 1996, James Andaya highlighted the issue of ancestral roots and the continued
colonial domination of IPs’ homelands by the modern state (Corntassel, 2003). To Andaya, Indigenous
Peoples are those who are living descendants of pre-invasion inhabitants and whose lands are now
dominated by others. Second, they are indigenous because their ancestral
roots are fixed in the territory they occupy and will continue to occupy or in areas in close proximity to this
land in case of dislocation. Third, they can be considered as a distinct community because their ancestors’
way of life is carried over into the present generation.

Ted Gurr provides the distinction between indigenous people and the emerging ethno-nationalist
phenomenon in some countries. Some ethnic groups have been proclaiming that they belong to the category
of indigenous people and their assertion of the right to self-determination has escalated to efforts to
separate and establish their own state. Based on Gurr’s classification (2000), ethnonationalists are those
communities that had stable and resilient political organizations prior to conquest, colonization or
establishment of a modern state, and have had persistent support from modern movements that assert
withdrawal from the State and the establishment of their own state. Indigenous People, on the other hand,
live mainly in conformity with traditional social, economic, and cultural customsthat differ acutely from the
dominant group without assertion of cessation.

However, Fred Riggs challenges this claim and emphasizes that the IP definition should include four
variables: First to consider is the cultural level of the community from primitive to more complex societies.
The more primitive are considered as IPs. Second to consider is the historical sequence of who came first and
who followed. Those who inhabited the land first are considered to be IPs. To consider the political position,
the IPs are those marginalized communities, and the dominant communities cannot be considered as IPs.
Last to consider is the geographical area, and the ancestral domain claim is highly taken into account.

Benedict Kingsbury (1998) makes a case of the constructivist approach in defining IPs; moreover, he contends
the impossibility of universally applicable criteria in defining who are IPs and who are not. Kingsbury
promotes maximum tractability in categorizing IP groups while maintaining four
essential criteria: self-identification as a distinct ethnic group; historical experience of, or contingent
vulnerability to, severe disruption, dislocation or exploitation; long historical connection with the region or
territory; and the aspiration to retain a distinct identity.
Who Are IPs in the Philippines?

In the Philippines, Indigenous People are commonly referred to as katutubo. In Mindanao they are
collectively called Lumad to separate them from the Islamized ethnic groups in the region (Arquiza, 2016).
The legal definition is provided by Republic Act No. 8371 otherwise known as “An Act to Recognize, Protect
and Promote the Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples, Creating a National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples, Establishing Implementing Mechanisms, Appropriating Funds.

Therefore, and for other Purpose.” Chapter 2 Section 3 (h) of R.A. 8371 refers to IPs as synonymous with
Indigenous Cultural Communities or ICC, and defines them as having the following qualifications:
a. A group of people or homogenous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by others, who
have continuously lived as an organized community on communally-bounded and defined territory;
b. Those who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial, occupied, possessed and utilized
such territories, sharing common bonds of language, customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural
traits;
c. Those who have, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of colonization, non-
indigenous religions and cultures, become historically differentiated from the majority of Filipinos;
d. Peoples who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations that inhabited
the country at the time of conquest or colonization, or of inroads of non-indigenous religions and cultures,
or the establishment of present state boundaries;
e. People who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions; and
f. People who may have been displaced from their traditional domains or who may have resettled outside
their ancestral domains.

The definition of ICCs or IPs in the Philippines in R.A. 8371 constitutes the common elements of the existing
definition of IPs in the literature. The definition highlights the need for self-identification, the qualifications
of ancestral roots and descent, the historical continuity of life, the sustained ancestral language and ancestral
land claim, the persistence of a distinct way of life and status as non-dominant group and their aspirations
to self-preservation and self-determination. In addition, the mandate of the law states that it can also include
people or groups who have been displaced from their ancestral homeland and those are displaced as in the
case of the Lumads and the Moros in Mindanao. On the other hand, utilizing Tedd Gurr’s classification (2000),
we can
consider the Islamized ethno-linguistics in Mindanao, which is generally called Moro and the Igorots in the
Cordillera region as ethnonationalist groups and not IP groups. However, the National Commission on
Indigenous People in the Philippines (NCIP), the national government and other government agencies, and
most academic literatures consider the Igorot and the Islamized ethnic groups in the Philippines to belong to
the IP category.

REFERENCE:
Biana, H. , Jabar, M. , Yabut, H. , and C. Regadio. 2016. Teaching Philippine Indigenous Cultures: Modules for Higher
Education Institutions. DLSU-Social Development Research Center.