Fetishisation of the Indigenous

Fetishisation of the Indigenous

11.  A trend amongst both left- and right-wing political thinkers, to varying degrees, is to fetishise indigeneity (the quality of being indigenous). Those of the left frequently use the concept to advocate the rights of those deemed native to territories subsequently colonised by peoples of European descent, while those on the right frequently use it to justify their opposition to the importation of foreign peoples to the territory currently occupied by their own nation. The difference is important, but both sides are fundamentally using the concept to justify a claim to any given territory, or more specifically, a claim which supersedes a rival claim by another group. Surprisingly, therefore, there is an agreement across the spectrum as to how this concept may be applied. Disagreement arises when it becomes necessary, for obvious reasons, to define precisely what is meant by the term ‘indigenous’. Further confusion appears as the vast majority of people use the terms indigenous and native interchangeably, despite them possessing subtle but important differences. To analyse and critique the fetishisation of the indigenous, it is therefore important we first define what we mean when using this term.

22.  The word native is derived from the Latin nativus, which, along with words like natal and nation, ultimately stem from the Latin root nasci. All of these words share birth as the common theme running throughout. Indeed, the dictionaries of today commonly cite birth within a particular territory as qualification of nativity. The commonly given meaning of indigenous, however, is that which naturally occurs in a place, or originally occurred in a place. Interestingly, this represents an older conflation, for the etymology of indigenous can trace the word to the Latin indigena, a noun synonymous with the modern native (i.e. born in a given territory). The true word that denotes natural occurrence or, more specifically, being the original inhabitants of a place, would be aboriginal, from the Latin aborigines meaning original inhabitants. However, modern parlance has heavily associated the adjective aboriginal with the original inhabitants of Australia, therefore it is unhelpful when discussing these concepts in more abstract ideological terms. Therefore, for the purposes of this discussion we will take indigenous as synonymous with aboriginal, as has been done by wider society across the globe.

3

33.  It is worth mentioning that there are benefits to ascribing indigeneity to one’s tribe or the subject of one’s advocacy in the modern world, particularly from the right. The most obvious of these benefits is the ability to advocate one’s position from within the moral framework of the opposition, thus forcing him into a position of submission or hypocrisy. And the exposition of one’s opponent’s hypocrisy is an effective way to claim victory in a debate, for man’s natural sense of fairness and justice engenders a natural inclination to abhor double standards. Moreover, the claim of indigenous status adds strength to a group’s territorial claims within the parameters of modern anthropology, for it enables a group to demonstrate, at least in theory, their belonging based upon the natural environment’s influence in shaping the characteristics of said group. However, these benefits are subjective. To derive them from this usage of indigenous status means fundamentally submitting oneself to the framework of leftist ideology and the associated consequences of that.

44.  There are also benefits to rejecting the notion of indigeneity from the right. The most notable (and obvious) of these is that it enables one to reject the leftist, Marxist Weltanschauung entirely and debate from a more authentic position. This rejection of indigenous status, at least for European people, is more historically and culturally legitimate, for the ancestors of European peoples, the Indo-Europeans, did not view the tag of conqueror with shame; quite the contrary, it was often a source of great pride. The Athenian philosopher Xenophon said of the Spartans, who Herodotus had described as the ‘purist’ (most Indo-European) of all the Hellenes; “…and I have no doubt that the fixed ambition of those who are thought to be the first among [the Spartans] is to live to their dying day as governors in a foreign land”. It was often considered prestigious in Bronze Age Europe and South Asia to constitute an invasive ruling caste over an indigenous and perceptibly lesser native population. In other words, one’s status as a conqueror was a source of pride. It is logical for the right to adopt this position, particularly if they wish to be consistent with other aspects of their worldview such as the righteousness of conquest, Darwinism and ‘might is right’.

55.  But is there, then, an objective truth, devoid of connotations related to a political worldview? Perhaps.

66.  After all, nature cares little for moral quaintness. Whether one has an enhanced ‘right’ to a territory that supersedes the ‘right’ of another is of little significance. The significant factor is a group’s location in space and time, and whether or not they are willing and able to defend their territory militarily, dominate it economically and govern it politically. If they are successful in these endeavours then that land is theirs as a matter of fact, irrespective of any alternate claims to it. This view is justified by the separation of the concepts nation and country. A nation is still a nation regardless of whether it possesses a country or not, therefore we can assume the irrelevance of the country it possesses (i.e. the land to which it is ‘native’). And a nation does not have an inherent right to territory just through the quality of being a nation, but it does possess the power to lay claim to territory, should that be its will and inclination.

77.  Finally, it is worth exposing the folly of the debate as it exists within the leftist ideological framework. It is extremely difficult to ascribe indigenous status to any group worldwide, considering the history of humanity is laced with movement, conquest, extinction and evolution. Those on the right will bemoan this sentiment but, nevertheless, it remains true. We know from genetic and archaeological data, for instance, that the Native Americans are not indigenous to the continent, but rather that their ancestors travelled to it across the Bering Straight in prehistory (approx. 25,000 years bp) from an urheimat somewhere in Siberia. But that isn’t the full story, since we know that that particular race is composed on two prior groups, East Eurasians and Ancient North Eurasians to use their genealogical terms, who originally came from an unspecified land. Thus the folly of feitishising the indigenous becomes quickly apparent.

88.  To establish indigeneity, we would first be forced to establish a universally recognised cut-off date. But that, again, is fraught with controversy because nobody would agree upon precisely what that date is, because the nature of the argument is so subjective. Therefore, we must accept the reality of paragraph 6; that the right to a territory is a figment. The only extant tangible is the power to act in order for a nation to obtain, defend and maintain a position within space and time.