# data[].attributes.headline
Articulating Indigenous Identity is Political, Multidimensional and Dynamics (694529)

# data[].attributes.subject
Articulating Indigenous Identity is Political, Multidimensional and Dynamics (694529)

# data[].attributes.body
Li tries to explore how the identity of indigenous people/society are constructed. In general, there are two main factors, external (the government development programs) and the indigenous people perspective themselves. In the case that she presents here (Indonesia context in 1994, comparison between Laude and Lindu people), the identity of indigenous people is more complex, as they may or may not choose to be regarded as village people upon engaging with government programs (anything which will beneficial for them at given situation), because the government differently positioned them in relation to the field of power. The government itself (New Order regime) tried to simplify/homogenize the complexity by excluding ethnicities details and linguistic groups in the national census.
A more progressive indigenous people like Lindu prone to be more engaged with development programs or government administration issues, while a closer with nature indigenous people like Laude prefers to take some distance and be more conditional when engaging with government.
It is interesting to know the communist labelling applies to the peasant but not to the tribesmen (implausible) which reflects politization of identity by the government that somehow affect the articulation of indigenous people. (694529-Surya)

# data[].attributes.body
Could someone please post/Update the link on moodle to this reading. Many Thanks Rachel Young 696055

# data[].attributes.body
United Nations. nd. COVID-19 and Indigenous Peoples.

Incorrect link

# data[].attributes.body
I really resonated with this piece of writing – it is written really honestly and leaves a number of questions open. The descriptors of the oil are poignant. The situational quandary that the author describes of the Cofán people in Chapter 1 about being in the pockets of the oil, tied up in an unwinnable legal battle and the “political balancing act is a challenge” (Cepek 2018). This writing reinforces the message that is underlying in all economic and cultural battles that its complicated. It isn't just right and wrong. And due to this the answer/s isn't/aren't simple or potentially conceivable.

# data[].attributes.body
Nigel Jeffery 655044
I agree, this paper paints a powerful picture of some of the consequences of our oil dependency. However, he draws attention to the Cofan's cheerfulness in adversity - and I wonder if this is real or romanticised? He also draws attention to the inequalities of power when the Cofan seek compensation from Texaco for oil-spills, something we can all agree is real and the Cofan's distrust of Western outsiders to represent them resonates with Spivak's work on subalternity.

# data[].attributes.body
By comparing two locations in Indonesia, Li eloquently highlights how an indigenous identity is not a given, but arises through articulation and may require certain pre-conditions in order to 'become'. To avoid division and conflict, the state wants all Indonesians to be 'equally indigenous', meanwhile some activists use categories of indigenous people for political ends. Identifying as 'indigenous might be seen by some as opportunistic to gain rewards; it might come with risks as well, as it might connect some people whilst alienating others.

# data[].attributes.body
I totally agree with Nigel and Rachel that the content of the piece is incredibly important and well present. However. There are some major issues with the anthropological methodology at play here. First and foremost, the use of the word 'collaborator' disguises the privilege gap inherent in the ethnographer- ethnographee relationship (see Ahmed's discussion of the "Bell Debate" https://www.arasite.org/ahmed.html). To further illustrate this point, Cepek is making assumptions throughout the piece about why the Cofan people believe what they think, assumptions grounded much more in Cepek's positionality as an outsider rather than reality for the Cofan people. For example, on p. 10 they write "Any people who smile and laugh as much as the Cofan do must be convinced that life can always offer joy no matter how painful and precarious it becomes." I would point to accounts from survivors of the German death camps and also inhabitants of refugee camp slums in the occupied West Bank, as to why they are so happy and jovial all the time, which rather than be joyful as Cepek says as an illustration on their reflection on the inherent pain in one's life, survivors of the camps and inhabitants of occupation camps alike have reflected they are unceasingly outwardly joyful because (I'm paraphrasing) 'it's better to laugh than to cry.' Other than these assumptions made my Cepek, I also find it rather counterproductive that they refer to their "adopted family," because this again disguises the fact that they have been generously hosted by a group of informants, rather than legally adopted as a child.
Like previously stated, I do agree with Rachel and Nigel that this reading was informative and important. But these obvious issues with the author's method were of great offense to me, and it reduced my appreciation of the content significantly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The category of stranger implies a combination of knowing and unknowing, and is thus the object of knowledge [of their strangeness] rather than produced by no knowledge.This illustrates that knowledge always involves some community, since strangers are recognized as being already out of place, an object of knowledge only when they enter 'home'.Anthropology works with this conception as well, of strangers which have to be made into familiar forms of strangeness.There is still a boundary problem, a more academic kind, around a field of knowledge [in this case anthropology].Strangers are permitted to enter the field, but only as a figure.This whole notion of strangeness is going to be more profitable to feminist methodology than the concept of the other: the crucial question changing from 'who speaks' to 'who knows'

The context is an issue in Australian anthropology, the 'Bell debate', but Ahmed is insisting that she's not speaking in any way for or as an Australian aboriginal woman, although she claims a 'solidarity [with them] which comes in part from lived experiences of gendered forms of racism'(50).[She is a 'mixed race Asian Australian woman who now resides in the UK'].The Bell debate arose after publication of the study of Australian aboriginal women by Bell and Nelson, the latter being an Australian aboriginal woman herself.This debate arose in the early 1990s, but still has relevance for when white feminists discuss the issue of land title, for example.It also illustrates the benefits of considering strangeness not otherness, which in turn means an examination of how ethnography produces knowledge.

The usual description of how ethnography works is to refer to translations between languages and perceptions 'moving strangeness from one system of meaning to another without altering its coherence' (51).This nearly always involves some notion that we recognize in 'the primitive' some predecessor of our own understandings.In practice, it involves swapping terms in order to make the foreign familiar, 'an act of violence' (51).The analogy with translation also conceals the practice that the text of the strange has to be produced first [through writing practices, no doubt?].This very production destroys the original material.Anthropological texts are clearly written for other anthropologists, and here the strange is recreated.The result is a hybrid text, including the 'not-quite- strange or not- quite- familial [SIC]' (52).

We can see this if we recognize that it is the ethnographer who is the stranger, and that they can be taught about themselves.However, the ethnographer claims authority, implying that others are the strangers.So the concept of strangeness is also central to the operation of the profession.[Same with teachers, and all professionals doing face work?] It is a superior epistemology used to deny the ontology of the strange (53).

Does feminist methodology challenge these assumptions?The issues can be explored by thinking of post colonial feminism with its interest in who is speaking exactly, including the idea of possible positions from which to speak [shades of Deleuze on anthropological documentary --see Smith's Intro].Spivak has asked whether subalterns can speak at all.This has led us to the positions where some white feminists have claimed to speak for the subaltern and so have contributed to their silencing.Asking the question 'who knows' adds an epistemic dimension.Just as Spivak insists that being able to speak is related to the issues of 'work, production and exchange' (54) so is being able to know-how does dominant speech and knowledge know the other in the first place?

The study by Bell [whjite female]and Nelson [indigenous female] focused on the rape of indigenous Australian women by indigenous men.It was written to advance the claim that everyone must speak about rape, but this raises the issue about who 'everyone' is, and whether the authors are entitled to speak on their behalf.Bell was accused of using Nelson, and of creating divisions among the indigenous population, and it got very heated.

Nelson was credited as a co-author and not an informant [also seen as sinister by the critics].This supports current 'postmodern' views that authorship should be shared, and texts polyvocal.However, does this overcome relations of power and domination?The position of Nelson shows the ambiguities-has she really spoken as an equal, in a scholarly journal following the usual conventions?To credit Nelson as a sufficiently important informant could also raise problems, since this is normal in anthropology anyway and a power relation again, disguising the actual process of constructing ethnographic texts.Bell seems to have believed that she can write as an individual in a way that simply overcomes power relations [just like autoethnography].Power relations are concealed beneath this 'fantasy' of togetherness (56) and polyvocality.These challenges extend to feminist ethnography as well.

It is also a question of knowledge.Bell was able to defend herself by saying that the real issues concerned the rape of women, not theoretical debates about voice.Bell talks about womanly friendship with Nelson as the basis for the collaboration, but there is still a suspicion that this is not mere friendship, but one subordinated to the requirements of ethnographic work.This is often implied in other feminist ethnography as well.It also implies that friendship between women is powerful enough to overcome racial differences between them [class differences too?]-would feminists argue that friendship between men and women can overcome sexism?In practice, Bells' whiteness empowers her to offer friendship, while Nelson's blackness makes it difficult for her to speak, and these assumptions of normalization are still there, even if explicit racism is not. Private friendship is seen as powerful enough to overcome institutional relations.In fact, those institutional relations are always there and provide a context for friendships.Bell is naive, or in denial, to insist that a mere desire to speak to each other produced the collaboration.Bell herself has claimed ethnographic authority for participation, in the form of experience in fieldwork: the encounter between her and Nelson was structured just like a classic anthropological encounter in the field (59).

Bell's earlier work is also revealing.It included some autobiographical elements which led to a denial of any particular objectivity and an admission of confusion.However, writing in the first person does not challenge ethnographic authority sufficiently.Bell's earlier book follows a classic narrative of confusion turning into knowledge, and this depends on encountering others [as in male heroics in travel writing see Beezer].The personal confusion it is now a recognizable anthropological genre and narrative, and it often appears in the first chapter of textsAccess to the field becomes an heroic struggle with benefits for the self.It is also naive, because Bell was already informed by anthropological literature not just her encounters with native women.The resources for translation are unavoidable, and the effects and processes must be discussed, as above.We find the same ambiguous status of stranger-strange enough to be of interest, but not so strange that they can't be grasped by anthropology.Success in constructing the narrative redounds to the credit of the researcher.[And there is a hint of the point that apparently direct quotations support this authority and credit.It is better done in Clough really].Bell situates herself as the learner, with the aboriginal women as teachers, but she still narrates her experiences to the reader through her own knowledge.The retelling implies that the aboriginal women would have authorized her understandings, and this is emphasized if they are given the status of co-authors.

What the anthropologist learns involves her becoming like an indigenous child, learning customs and conventions, for example, but she can never be just like a child but has already has a lot of knowledge.Imitating others also preserves their difference, but this is blurred again.The researcher is permitted to 'speak of "the indigenous women themselves", for them, and as them at the same time' (62).Is the researcher really a hybrid, or is this another technique, almost becoming the other in order to access them?Indigenous women are not allowed to become hybrid [ Clifford says that Margaret Mead deliberately avoided partially westernised Samoan women].The skilled techniques cover the relations of power about who is allowed to speak.Is this inevitable?

An alternative is suggested by Powdermaker, who suggests that anthropologist must maintain a deliberate double relation, as both friend and stranger, avoiding becoming native [old hat]:the ethnographer comes to realise that it is impossible [just another example of a different technique producing different knowledge effects?].The failure to go native is informative itself, and points to what anthropologists cannot know.This raises the problem of the knowing stranger.

Actual techniques appear to be listening out for things that don't fit [Becker, years ago], bits that don't fit the ethnographic texts.These bits tend to be excluded as 'bad', or even inauthentic, arising from people who have not learned or cooperated(63). We should welcome these voices, see them as a gift, the basis of a dialogue with white feminism.[Shame, pretty damp squib really].

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The category of stranger implies a combination of knowing and unknowing, and is thus the object of knowledge [of their strangeness] rather than produced by no knowledge.This illustrates that knowledge always involves some community, since strangers are recognized as being already out of place, an object of knowledge only when

# data[].attributes.body
I feel like this piece was like literature or a story to read. The 'characters' were so vivid and alive. It seems like the way Cepek describing how Cofan people dealing with the whole situation was quite subjective and I wonder why he had the power to conclude in that way and is there a way we as a reader to challenge his rhetoric / discourse? For example, Cepek mentioned that Cofan did not really care about their health and safety and kept on using the dirty water for daily lives. But what if there was someone not having the same thoughts as the ones using the dirty water?
by Ho Yee Mak (695106)

# data[].attributes.body
Similar to my classmates - I really enjoyed the way these chapters were written. It lets you in as a reader to the nuances of the story of oil and the Cofan people. In the chapter 1 reading I appreciated Cepek emphasizing the importance of this "story of oil" (which has come up a lot in our readings), and he shows the push and pull of the resilience of the Cofan people but how they have come to doubt that they have power to say no to these oil companies. And he builds on this notion of oil as paradox in the chapter 8 reading as well. However, these chapters did leave me wondering about how accounts of Cofan experiences are so often told by non Cofan people and this is adding to that. I also wonder where Cepek gets his optimism that there is still time to make the planet just and sustainable for everyone as that was left somewhat unexplained. (695065)

# data[].attributes.body
This article led me to think about many different issues like post-colonial societies and the experiences of oppression and exploitation in identity formation. In terms of defining who is and isn't indigenous, I think an emphasis on colonial and post colonial subjugation is relevant but I'm not entirely sure if it is enough. In India for example, the entire continent was colonised but the tribal populations till date face unique forms of exploitation and oppression. This article encouraged mw to think more critically of concepts that I till now thought I understood.
(695001)

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed these chapters. I had a question regarding quasi objects, I don't think I understood the concept entirely. I was hoping someone could help me understand it or point towards some resources that could help me. Thanks
(695001)

# data[].attributes.body
I think this reading provides us with the repetitive narrative of romanticising indigenous communities - seeing them as the victims of a tragedy but still having the wisdom or 'culture' to overcome it. But at the end of the day it is a community of people who have genuinely been harmed and deserve to be listened to and also given what they need (eg. I agree where the reading says why did they fail to provide real material goods—and money—rather than verbal lessons that were repetitious, scripted, and out of touch with the reality of Cofán lives?). 695002

# data[].attributes.body
From my understanding, the term quasi-object is used to portray something as more complex and multifaceted than a material non-human object.
The term quasi-object allows us to see oil as something that can live in other ways too. For instance, to break down Bruno Latour's definition of quasi-object, we can argue that the existence of oil is so complex that it is "narrative as discourse" in the sense that is arguably the catalyst of our economy, as "collective as society" in the sense that it literally dictates how and where people live - or don't live - and "existential as being" in the sense that it is personified as a "powerful being" that can manipulate states in hostile and confusing ways.  Amy, 694871

# data[].attributes.body
Like my fellow students I found these 2 chapters really enjoyable to read and agree with many of the points raised. I was really interested in the role that President Rafael Correa played as Petroamazonian chief and some of the projects he introduced during 2007 - 17 including the Millennium village. Perhaps this was covered in greater detail in other chapters but there was very little critique of his actions and we didn't hear from the Cofan about their view of these measures. For me Cepek comes very much from the point of view that as an indigenous peoples the Cofan have every right to maintain a traditional way of life. I don't argue with that but wonder at the lack of reflection upon it. In their essay, Renee Sylvain states that if indigenous people are heard as political actors they "slip from the 'savage slot'" , and if the larger goal is empowerment then indigenous people must achieve greater political presence and have their voices heard directly. Sylvain also quotes James Suzman's (2002) view that " indigenous rights narratives relegate socio-economic issues only to secondary importance",  therefore I question the absence of any political argument that the Cofan had a right to benefit from a distributive justice strategy, not just claim compensation for what has been lost.
Nicole 696134

# data[].attributes.body
In the article Karlsson (along with Colchester & McIntosh) is in favor of the concept of indigenous peoples, despite it being a categorically "fuzzy" term. I would tend to agree with Karlsson on this, however as is mentioned in the article, the concept of indigenous peoples is seemingly a rather contentious one, in that there are unresolved issues in how it is defined? I am curious as to how others in this module would go about defining the concept of indigenous peoples, or is there even a need for an absolute definition?

# data[].attributes.body
(Melanie 695127) I found it interesting that Lindu community  utilised the wider global interest in protection of cultural indigenous communities to find wider support for their cause opposing the building of the dam. They presented themselves and their cause in relation to multiple fields of power. In some ways, showing that the definitions of what is indigenous is still shaped by imperial and western thought system but also using those definitions to create potential opportunities and protect their land.

# data[].attributes.body
In response to 695001 - I understood quasi-object to mean that oil in this context has many different layers? It not only has affects on the community as a material object but also in its social, environmental and conceptual impact. Much like our previous reading on coal and how it was perceived differently depending on who was perceiving it/how they were involved in its existence. 695002.

# data[].attributes.body
(695127 Melanie) To 695065 - I also found Cepek’s optimism interesting - asserting that there is still ‘time’ without much concrete reasons. In fact, the way that oil has seeped (excuse the pun) into their being (physically and as a community) and their resilience isn’t exactly optimistic.
To Claire, 695166 - agree with your criticisms especially with the problems with the word ‘collaborator’ and ‘adopted family.’ Cepek often came across as making assumptions on the Cofan people’s opinions - perhaps this lack of rapport comes from the distrust from years of their lands being destroyed.
What I did like was the contrast of the Cofan story with what people traditionally associate with oil (America, Middle East, etc) - an elaboration on this to encourage people to think of the wider (bleaker) picture of the impact of oil may have made for an interesting piece.

# data[].attributes.headline
Local Wisdom to Sustain Earth Viability (694529)

# data[].attributes.subject
Local Wisdom to Sustain Earth Viability (694529)

# data[].attributes.body
Capek article tells a story of the Cofan people that survive the modernity and capitalism effects because their local wisdom that focus on the present and let go of the past. It doesn't mean they are passive and can receive maltreatment from the corporation, rather they are trying to coexist and adapt by preserving interconnection among human, development, and nature. This is reflected by Capek that said "Cofán people appear to be mobilizing the substance to create a more promising space for themselves in the contemporary world."
As my own reflection, I think stakeholders in development need to create a more inclusive interaction with the indigenous society and consider them as an inseparable stakeholder when designing programs or policy. We need to learn and exchange knowledge with them as they have profound connection with nature. Greater goods for society need to be above political economy interests.

# data[].attributes.body
I really liked the part in the paper about the adoption of 'sumak kawsay', an Indigenous term that means 'good living', into the Ecuadorian mainstream, and found it really interesting how the government took this Indigenous saying and redefined it under their own terms of 'Ecuadorian development'.

It made me think of the COVID slogans that we've been seeing, the new normal’, ‘build back better’ – what are we building back? Are these sayings just encouragement for further ‘development’, further capitalist agendas, loose and abstract definitions that anyone can adopt to fit their needs.

694963

# data[].attributes.body
I enjoyed reading this article, it reminded me of yet another reason why it's really easy to get fed up with the UN and international bureaucracy. Yay for protecting people's rights, but does human rights have to be so exclusive to one group or another? Must we spend more time defining boundaries than on the actual protection of people's rights?

# data[].attributes.body
I think you give a great explanation of quasi-object. I would that that its integration into every aspect of our economy, a catalyst as you call it, requires and generates all of this infrastructure (especially due to its unwieldy, hazardous nature), the social relations and the subjectivities of those who live under its sphere of influence. Therefore it seems to escape the constraints of an inanimate object. I found the references to Latour in the introduction to the anthropology of sustainability reading in the first week very interesting also and would like to read more of him.

George 677207

# data[].attributes.body
What I've found interesting in Cepek's writing is the way he plays with the different perceptions of value. He deliberately, in my understanding, emphasizes how annoyed he was as his very "comforting" daily routine was "jeopardized" by the dirty water. He also mentions how "lucky" he felt that after 20 years of studying the Cofán people and their relation with the oil industry, he finally had the chance to experience it. While it was "impossible" for him to return to his daily ritual, Cofán people had to continue their essential routine, which meant bath, fish, and wash clothes and dishes to their only source of water that was now full of oil. My view is that he intentionally made this contrast in his writing to point out the different aspects of value, that people from the west have to Cofán people.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the above – I found the first few pages really hard to understand and get my head around the new terms, but once it started to contextualise it looking at the issues in the Kalahari I really enjoyed reading it.

As mentioned above, I think what really articulates the need for anthropologists to "not unthinkingly adopt indigenous rhetoric", the view of the romanticised, 'noble savage' was the part looking at NGOs role in the San communities’ campaigning - and how international narratives, and successful ones too, in raising awareness of the issues facing Indigenous people use these essentialist strategies that could “trap indigenous people in unrealistic identity scrips”.

694963

# data[].attributes.body
In response to points raised on here about the continued usage of polluted water, I though I'd just add a few things that went through my mind whilst reading:

Cepek couldn't understand why Cofán people resumed using polluted water despite attmepts to explain the consequences. It would be easy to pass off this interaction as an act of ignorance or of saviourism but I think that we should consider the epistemological processes of both participants. The author has acquired the knowledge of the effects of polluted water through an education received in a position of global privilege; the subject has acquired this knowledge through the illness, violence and deaths of community members. For the latter, this is something that has gradually impacted their way of life for decades, carries emotional attachment, and, owing to the power dynamics, is something to be accustomed to. In this, Cofán people can only understand Cepek by believing that his knowledge is valid enough to warrant change - by trusting an outsider. Yet, it is outsiders that have slowly imposed on the indigenous way of life to the point of severe decline in quotidien livelihood.

If anyone has any further thoughts on this I'd enjoy hearing them. It may be an obvious point to make but I believe it is one that illustrates well the complexities of coherent understanding between researchers and research participants.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Nigel gets to the core of what this reading is about – the question of how indigenousness is constructed and how contemporary and historical forces create the context for that identity.

The notion of indigenousness can only really exist within the framework of (western) imperialism, and Suharto's saying that "everyone is indigenous" in practice means that no one is.

# data[].attributes.headline
695008: What I found interesting about Cepek's chapters was his novel like writing. I felt completely immersed in the village of Dureno, living with the Cofan people, swimming in the oil infested river. "As soon as I heard Lucia mashing the plantains, I emerged from my mosquito net. Covered only by a pair of loose briefs, my pale flesh and soft frame were on full display." This narrative style of writing was superb and made the impacts of the oil on the community personal to the reader.

# data[].attributes.subject
695008: What I found interesting about Cepek's chapters was his novel like writing. I felt completely immersed in the village of Dureno, living with the Cofan people, swimming in the oil infested river. "As soon as I heard Lucia mashing the plantains, I emerged from my mosquito net. Covered only by a pair of loose briefs, my pale flesh and soft frame were on full display." This narrative style of writing was superb and made the impacts of the oil on the community personal to the reader.

# data[].attributes.body
I found this article really insightful in further understanding how indigenous communities are viewed by centralised government bodies and how the 'tribal slot' is used is an adaptable tool used by NGOs that transitions according to the agenda and needs of the movement. I also found it particularly disturbing how desa official mapping will present certain districts as empty or uninhabited as a method of erasing the existence of the indigenous peoples who live there.

# data[].attributes.headline
695008: I thought Li’s comparison between Laude and Lindu groups to draw out the argument that indigenous identities are formed via articulation and agency, was well executed and clear. The self-identification of communities into the ‘indigenous’ or ‘tribal’ categories was interesting, especially her argument that they ‘emerge through particular patterns of engagement and struggle’. This made me contemplate the impacts of climate change on specific groups of Indonesia and the possibility for new self-identification. Indonesia is on a plate tectonic line, thus prone to volcanic activity, earthquakes, and subsequent tsunamis. Furthermore, due to climate change and disturbed, intense, weather patterns in the region, there is greater chance of severe flooding and landslides. As the Lindu people came to position themselves in the tribal slot during a moment of crisis, could other communities do the same during the climate crisis? https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10406026.2018.1504380?journalCode=becj20This article by Khursheed Ahmad Wani and Lutfah Ariana could be a fascinating read.

# data[].attributes.subject
695008: I thought Li’s comparison between Laude and Lindu groups to draw out the argument that indigenous identities are formed via articulation and agency, was well executed and clear. The self-identification of communities into the ‘indigenous’ or ‘tribal’ categories was interesting, especially her argument that they ‘emerge through particular patterns of engagement and struggle’. This made me contemplate the impacts of climate change on specific groups of Indonesia and the possibility for new self-identification. Indonesia is on a plate tectonic line, thus prone to volcanic activity, earthquakes, and subsequent tsunamis. Furthermore, due to climate change and disturbed, intense, weather patterns in the region, there is greater chance of severe flooding and landslides. As the Lindu people came to position themselves in the tribal slot during a moment of crisis, could other communities do the same during the climate crisis? https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10406026.2018.1504380?journalCode=becj20This article by Khursheed Ahmad Wani and Lutfah Ariana could be a fascinating read.

# data[].attributes.body
thanks for sharing.  Another good one is Gather Film-about reclaiming indigenous foodways in the North West United States. Its on netflix

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
November is Native American Heritage Month. In addition to following Indigenous activists on Instagram and learning about Native food cultures, comprehending the societal and environmental issues facing Indigenous communities is key to better understanding what others of us can do to make the world a more equitable place to live. These seven documentary films offer a glimpse into modern issues faced by the Indigenous peoples of North America. Have a watch. You'll come out better informed - and inspired.

1. What Was Ours

Thousands of ancestral artifacts belonging to Native Americans sit in storage at museums and churches, not even being displayed - much less understood and preserved. In Mat Hames' 2017 documentary What Was Ours, an Eastern Shoshone Elder and two Northern Arapaho youth embark on a quest to bring these artifacts home and preserve the culture of their ancestors.

2. Water Warriors

Water Warriors begins as a story we've seen endless times, where extractive industries like fossil fuels and mining arrive seeking profit, disregarding the needs of Indigenous lands. This particular account is about a natural gas company looking to start fracking in New Brunswick, Canada. But at least in this tale, where Indigenous and white residents and activists fought back in order to protect the local water supply, the good guys come out on top. Water Warriors is a short documentary, and winner of multiple awards in 2018, about the battle for Mi'kmaq Elsipogtog First Nation culture, as well as the farming and fishing communities in New Brunswick.

3. The Radicals

Pro snowboarders and surfers embark on a journey across northern British Columbia and beyond in The Radicals, strengthening their relationship to the land as they learn about issues facing Indigenous communities and the environment along the way. The crux of the film, which premiered in 2018, is the importance of protecting land and rivers, and how outdoor recreationists can learn from Indigenous communities that have been stewards of the land for thousands of years. It highlights the Tahltan as they stand up for the headwaters of the Iskut River and how hydroelectric power threatens the fish populations on which the Xwisten First Nations of northern BC depend. The Radicals features ripping snowboarding and surfing along the way, but it's the actionable takeaways and narrative storyline that make this one of the best action sports films ever made.

4. Lake of Betrayal

Released in 2017, Lake of Betrayal documents the construction of the Kinzua Dam on the Allegheny River in Pennsylvania and the dramatic fight against it by the Seneca Nation. Beginning in the 1950s, the Seneca Nation rallied against the building of a dam on their sacred land. The dam was eventually completed in 1965, and the reservoir formed behind the dam flooded Seneca ancestral land to mitigate flood risk in Pittsburgh. Yet beyond the sad and all too familiar tale of betrayal, the Seneca people found strength and hope.

5. We Breathe Again

Suicide among Native Americans in Alaska has been on the rise over the past 40 years, in large part the result of a destruction of their once rich traditions by outsiders seeking to claim their land. We Breathe Again, which first screened in 2017, follows four Native Alaskans struggling with the personal impacts of suicide in their community and working to break from the mold. This moving film is set against the contrasting backdrop of the aurora borealis and icy natural whiteness against the paved streets of modernity.

6. We Still Live Here

The Wampanoag of Massachusetts helped the early pilgrims survive, and they paid dearly for it. Many Wampanoag men were sold into offshore slavery while many women were kept as slaves by colonists. In their native tongue, a language nearly forgotten to time, s Nutayuneân means " we still live here." The film, which won numerous awards after its 2010 debut, is an important story about the Wampanoag, a people nearly wiped from the face of the Earth.

7. The Refuge

This film was made in 2016 but is of particular relevance at this time, since the Trump administration moved to open parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration in August. The Refuge chronicles the Gwich'in people of Alaska and northern Canada and their fight to protect the area and the wild caribou that roam there, and upon which they depend on for survival.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 moving documentaries that show Indigenous struggles and successes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
November is Native American Heritage Month. In addition to following Indigenous activists on Instagram and learning about Native food cultures, comprehending the societal and environmental issues facing Indigenous communities is key to better understanding what others of us can do to make the world a more equitable place to live.

# data[].attributes.body
Whilst this article raised many interesting points and questions, I was most fascinated by the case study of REDD+ in Ecuador. According to Ludlow et. al the programme was intended to "allow" indigenous communities to practice their traditional ways of life, whilst making money and protecting the environment. It is suggested that the communities receive monetary rewards for living a certain way, as dictated by the programme. This brings up the topic of the commodification of culture. What is the impact of putting a price on cultural practice? Does this affect the "meaning" behind certain items, practices and traditions? Who gets to decide this? Could you argue that every aspect of "western" culture is commodified because capitalism is a total social fact?

# data[].attributes.body
I had to really study this essay by Renee Sylvain! Used it very much as a learning tool to try and better understand all the terms used. They mention several theories which required greater investigation and attempts at understanding. This in depth discussion paper left me reeling yet with a much deeper understanding of the breadth of issues it covers, including political & philosophical.
It took me half an hour just to reach some understanding of the Abstract and several hours to read but doing so was truly worth it and I'm very glad I invested the time. They conclude with the suggestion that 'better theories' are needed and for Anthropologists to "question existing dubious strategies and not unthinkingly adopt indigenous rhetoric or unreflectively endorse post modern theories of identity" - loads to discuss here!!
Nicole 696134

# data[].attributes.body
I thought this piece was a great example of how environmental destruction doesn't necessarily manifest in one giant chaotic event, but rather in a gradual process that, over decades, modifies our environments and forces us to adapt.

I also found the aspect of the Cofán's (and I suspect other indigenous groups) constant "political balancing act" interesting and frustrating. Westerners constantly speak for them and actually seemingly prevent their voices from really being heard.

While, like my classmates, I enjoyed the flow of this reading, I do have to agree with Claire's point that Cepek may be breaking some anthropological rules by making direct inferences about the Cofán's thoughts and feelings, and viewing himself as a "collaborator"

# data[].attributes.headline
San don’t need a mouthpiece (!) Zareena 695806

# data[].attributes.subject
San don’t need a mouthpiece (!) Zareena 695806

# data[].attributes.body
Throughout the article I was yearning to hear the voices of San themselves and although at times this did come through, both sides of the Kalahari debate seem to consign San to the sidelines. I am sure this is an intentional writing choice by Sylvain, so as to emphasise the counterproductive nature of the discourse; the objective should not be to scramble to the moral high ground at any cost. Given that San are a highly diverse group, an additional critique may be that both the traditionalists and revisionists conceived of all San as a homogenous monolith, when clearly this is not the case.

Overall, if we appreciated the intersectionality of such situations, we would not construct a hierarchy of axes of oppression (i.e. we could avoid falling into the trap of distilling a problem into having a singular cause).

# data[].attributes.body
Like my classmates, I'm quite interested and confused about the double-sided image of Cofan who was suffering from the consequences of oil extraction at the same time was optimistic and learned to survive together with the environment.

This article reminds me of Gable's work, the anthropology of Guilt and Rapport, in which the rapport showed by Lauje was turned out to be politeness and consideration towards the outsiders. Cepek also mentioned that the Cofan 'have learned to distrust everyone'. So the question reminds of whether the Cofan people did act as Cepek depicted.

# data[].attributes.body
I was interested in the discussion on how indigenous groups are portrayed and translated to those outside of their community and even further, how a significant part of what we understand as indigenous today is a result of its friction and encounters with Western civilizations and Western concepts of modernity. I wanted to know more about the implications of this or if there are any solutions for how we can better understand indigenous communities outside of this context- or if the point is that we cannot and should not try to.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is very philosophical but also serves as an aid to understanding the other readings. The author has demonstrated through the case of San in Botswana that issues are not always as simple as they appear. I like the fact that he brought what the San themselves, at least most of them, would have preferred. Both essentialists and postmodern deconstructionists are at extremes. This article has helped me to appreciate the work of Cepek. He took a very balanced position.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with you that the author is very vivid and reading his work becomes easy. I also like his way of presenting both sides of the story without taking position and even admitting his own mistakes of wanting to teach the Cofans how to react to their situation.

# data[].attributes.body
I thoroughly enjoyed these chapters from Cepek. Not only was his writing accessible and enticing, but it also took a difference stance to the one that we often see in writings / reports in the ‘West’. In the first chapter, Cepek criticises the prevailing Western rhetoric, which tends to make contemporary native peoples into ‘tragic symbols of its worst crimes’ whilst at the same time ‘portraying them as wise beacons who offer a superior and authentic was of life’ (p.12). Cepek avoids this stereotyping, and is instead – I thought – successful in painting the impact of oil in Cofán daily life in a way that gives their community agency, rather than a passiveness that is often present in western narratives. (658729)

# data[].attributes.body
I believe Cepek's intentions are deep and really helpful for a broader understanding of oil (and in general the extraction of resources) in relationship with the agents involved and the dynamics that it creates. Really like the concepts of "slow, confusing, and ultimately unknowable violence", "the challenge of the political balancing" and "oil as a quasi-object". Nevertheless I felt a lack of support and sometimes too much bias on his insights. So, I totally agree with 695166 and 694922.
Also, the excuses he gives at the end of Chapter 8 worried me a bit. He argues that he is only an anthropologist and he can not bring bigger conclusions mainly because information from other disciplines is out of his reach. In a way, fair enough. But on the other hand, he is not just a discipline. After 20 (?) years of research I would expect more solid results. Perhaps more courage in making conclusions or statements that maybe aren't entirely objective (same as the rest of his anthropological assumptions) but at least could bring new topics to the global discussion.

Tito 696601

# data[].attributes.body
The line that stood out to me the most in this article was that "Cofan people are not in search of saviours." Being in the West and so aware of our actions the impact our behaviours have on indigenous communities, I think we tend to forget that indigenous communities themselves have stood the test of time without the need for a modern saviour. So how do we help a community that doesn't need - or even want - to be saved, when it was our own actions that have caused them harm and destruction to their lands and livelihood? Is there a practical solution that will genuinely benefit indigenous communities that are put at risk by our actions whilst also ensuring that we feel adequate aid is being given?
Roshni 637370

# data[].attributes.body
I also agree to the above comments regarding the article. However the part that stands out most for myself in the article is where Sylvian talks about how foreign donors would be more likely to give to those playing up to indigenous roles, thus validating tat strategically deployed essentialism is the only life worth caring for by non-Indigenous people. Therefore, it seems that indigenous communities have been backed into a corner to play into essentialism - how can we combat this theory so that we can aid in indigenous communities achieving moral authority and being viewed as legitimate political actors with interest to push through like everyone else in the world?
Roshni 637370

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with you regarding the fact that this reading shows clearly how affected communities acclimate to environmental degradation. Since "the damage is already done", is acceptable for them to continue using the water even when it's visibly deadly. This outside unavoidable factor has become "part of their history", it reminded me of another example of adaptation from our previous reading about the carbon economy and how through the years it has become Filipino's tradition to work in the oil industry. - 695883

# data[].attributes.body
I think Claire's concerns articulate well a feeling I had while reading the first chapter. While the information, narrative, and photos gave great insight, I was really put off by Cepek's voice in this. There was almost a strange romanticization of the community and centering of himself in this work. His own interjections about his feelings and reflections did not add to the material nor were they tasteful in my opinion. I do believe that the methodology and his investment provided a great amount of material that would be valuable if presented in a better way and with a focus on the Cofán voice.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree and I think that this mismatch between epistemological perspectives is something that carries through more widely in discourse (and action) relating to the plights of indigenous communities around the world. Activists and individuals seeking to help indigenous people often struggle to do so by virtue of their different worldviews – it can be hard to understand what people actually want or need, especially when issues are so contentious and involve more than only humans, but the ecosystem/forest too. I think the epistemological incompatibility is exemplified by Chevron claiming that there are “insufficient medical records to support claims of contamination-related illnesses and deaths” – the criterion of evidence is fundamentally at odds with the Cofán’s understanding of medication and illness. 695806

# data[].attributes.body
I think this article was so clear in helping us understand the struggles of the Cofan people. In almost a story-like fashion talks about not only the frustrations felt by the Cofan people, but his own with the oil industry and the government for their reactions to certain environmentally dangerous situations such as oil spillages in the river. It reminds me of a kind of imperialistic view, where these indigenous people don't properly own the land, which gives us the right to take and occupy some of its resources, not realising the consequences it may leave. (Rammiyan Kesavan 696524)

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed reading the 2 chapters and learning a little about the Cofán and oil production in the Amazon.
The most compelling part for me is the explanation that oil manifests itself in different ways and, therefore, has shaped the forest in many ways. Cepek does a good job of illustrating the role oil plays at various levels/ the consequences of an oil-based existence. Most importantly he has overcome the challenge of presenting this anthropological knowledge in a manner digestible by both academics and non-academics.
The challenge I found is the fact that he starts off by painting himself as yet another "clueless, patronising gringo" (I am still picturing him in his briefs taking breakfast he cannot stomach) - alluding to the fact that he was an "other" and therefore could not fully know, let alone have the authority to speak for the Cofán. At a later stage he highlights the fact that he speaks the local language and has used various methods to offer more accurate information (than other anthropologists, I imagine). In the end (pg 245) he gives *his* opinion, saying that he was convinced by the Cofán. Because of this, I found it hard to place him.
I found myself wondering if the book was more about Cepek's beliefs and attitudes towards an oil-based existence, merely presented against the backdrop of Dureno? (If Chevron hired their own anthropologist, who was funding Cepek?) However, we can not judge an entire book based on only 2 chapters.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was a handful. It covers a lot of broad but interesting aspects, especially in regard to essentialism vs constructionism and distribution v recognition. One thing that stuck to me was not only, the importance of essentialism but, how that can be used against a certain tribe. The example Renee provides was how the GoB argued that the San tribes fathers and 'grandfathers use their traditional ways of finding water'. The situation involving the San and the CKGR can be reminiscent to the relations with colonists and Native Americans in the 18th century, the idea of coercing and forcing the relocation of an indigenous and native tribe. (Rammiyan Kesavan 696524)

# data[].attributes.body
Cepek outlines how the destruction of large areas of forest has removed the need for sharing that was so integral to creating community, whether this be in food production or hunting, and instead has been replaced with more atomistic tasks, often revolving around the earning of money. I think Cepek is wrong to question whether ‘division can be an international corporate tactic to stifle opposition or an unplanned by-product of the new work, new money, and new outsiders meddling in community affairs’ – in my opinion it is the latter, part of a neoliberal aim to create an individualistic society where community, collective action is no longer a problem.

# data[].attributes.body
Thanks Amy for your explanation of the ‘quasi-object’, it really got me thinking about how oil has really replaced the forest as the main effector in the Cofán peoples lives. Does the forest itself exist as a 'quasi-object' also?

# data[].attributes.body
It took me some time to get into Karlsson's article but it really brought to light the complexity that comes with both the definition and concept of 'indigenous peoples'. A term with both substantivist and political value, Karlsson highlights that indigenousness has a 'flexible framework' (Colchester), no one definition and it varies all over the world depending on a particular past and present. I ask myself what does it mean to be indigenous, is it a choice, a political tool or a form of self identification? Perhaps All!
Eliza (686948)

# data[].attributes.body
Although essentialism may add to stereotyped views of the indigenous, this article seems to suggest that it is the San's only viable way of gaining political traction, but it can be exploited when it comes to resource extraction. The tensions between political engagement and theoretical commitment were highlighted well in this article, and helped me articulate between two behemoth positions of essentialism and deconstructivism. After studying Derrida last year in TASA, I somewhat fell in love with the notion of picking apart these hierarchies and examining the guts of it, but after reading this article I am more aware that in different cultural contexts and different moments in time this is not always helpful when mis-recognition of indigenous peoples may compound racial inequalities and people such as the San are seen to be illegitimate in their practices. So how do they achieve a sustainable political voice untethered to, 'a global white epistemic authority' and achieve autonomy? (Mills in Sylvain's article). Sarah 683385

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with you Rammiyan, the chapters are extremely clear in helping us understand the struggles of the Cofan people.
Its literary format and descriptive nature allows us to really imagine what an oil spill visually feels like, the frustrations, and this sense of destruction of local communities by the global north. Cepek explains that the Cofan people have allowed oil to become a part of their life, politically, socially, ecologically and medically. They have allowed it to slowly poison their valued traditions and identity, but did they have a choice?

# data[].attributes.body
I enjoyed the style of writing and also agree with many of the critiques here.  While I found much of the account shared by Cepek to be effective storytelling that engaged the reader and brought them into the story in an effective way, I too found at times that he oversimplified conceptions of happiness and outward joy. I do think he did a good job at framing the realities of being baited by the possibilities of oil leading to prosperity and accumulated wealth.  Partnered with the crude film, I found the two methods of storytelling to be really important for all of us anthropologists to see-especially white ones(I'm white)-in order to consider how you engage with indigenous peoples and whether you are elevating and engaging in allyship or whether that relationship is exploitative and/or tokenizes indigeneity.

# data[].attributes.body
Double blind of indigeneity is really good explained especially the different dimensions like political and ontological etc. I think it is again interesting to see who is identified as indigenous and who is not. The same for the critique that indigenous communities now try to adapt to the concept. I can see a lot of parallels to other critiques about other categories. And the issue about "never win". (695131)

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the other comments about the two chapters. I really enjoyed the writing style of Cepek and it was interesting to read. However, some parts especially when he made his own assumptions were (from my point of view) quite romanticized. I am wondering if this is the result because he does not want to present the Cofán people as victims. I think in one part we wrote that the community is in dilemma between two messages to inform people about their situation and to deserve compensation and on the other hand to let the world know that they are survivors with a language, culture, and a way of life they are determined to maintain. (695131)

# data[].attributes.body
I too found both chapters enjoyable to read. They were very accessible and story-like. The description was very vivid and the emotions were raw. I thought it was interesting how after the 2014 oil spill, Cepek was more outraged and angry at the injustice than the Cofan community, and how Cepek explored temporally how he became to understand their indifference and his own "outsider" reaction as being wholly unhelpful, exploring how they had experienced much worse over a much greater period of time pre-oil extraction as a result of colonialism and mass dispossession of land. I found the Bruno Latour term "quasi-object" to be a successful way in which to place oil as a wholly complex non-human object. How it has violently shaped the Amazonians way of life for both good and bad, in unquantifiable ways.

# data[].attributes.headline
The difference between a "NEED" and a "WANT" across cultures / regions / communities [695003]

# data[].attributes.subject
The difference between a "NEED" and a "WANT" across cultures / regions / communities [695003]

# data[].attributes.body
This reading made me reflect about my mini-research trips in the field across India. The idea of what seems like a non-negotiable, base-level requirement for survival for one person, ends up being a complete "extra" frill for another. I thought it was a bit more unique to the extreme socio-economic disparity in India. It made me realise that this issue of what's a need vs a want is the same across regions, communities and cultures.

It's interesting how this difference is what global businesses thrive on.

Harish Subramanian 695003

# data[].attributes.body
One sentence I found poignant in the Cepek was, “Cofán people are not in search of saviors, and they do not trust individuals who present themselves as such.” This made me think of the idea of the white savior complex—a topic that has been a big part of discussions in recent years. With much of our livelihoods being dependent on oil, we as Westerners create the demand for the product which then in turn causes these sorts of disasters at the expense of native peoples around the world. We then turn around and want to preach to others about the injustices the indigenous people face. We want to get justice. We want to speak for them. While all of these are good intentioned, it comes across as tone deaf. The questions the Cofán people asked were valid: “Why did [well-intentioned outsiders] care about people they did not know? Why did they produce dozens of articles and films that had few if any results? And why did they fail to provide real material goods—and money—rather than verbal lessons that were repetitious, scripted, and out of touch with the reality of Cofán lives?” I’m not suggesting that we are each personally responsible for oil spills across the globe and of course it’s important to speak out against Big Oil. But going to indigenous groups and preaching at them about problems we help sustain, like Cepek did in chapter 1,  or speaking for them and labeling them as “voiceless”—viewing ourselves as being their voice, without actually providing helpful resources, is a problem in itself which is harder to recognize because it is well-intentioned. — 695210

# data[].attributes.body
Interesting that you brought up the writing style. Made me realise what made the reading experience so captivating. The use of tone, honest emotions, and the way he's juxtaposed stark contrasts between his expectations vs what the locals thought was beautiful. I feel like he took us into his honest, unfiltered thought-process, which made it feel so raw and real. I could empathise with him.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that this is a term coined by Bruno Latour - quasi-objects are objects made up of elements of the social and the natural. They are actants that bring people together so that they become a part of a network. It's a non-human actant around which a human network forms basically but it is a complex concept that I am only just about grasping! Oil, in this case, would be the quasi- object, as it is a powerful actant within this Amazonian community, another example perhaps being electricity, and people's access to it, and other energy sources.... or the internet! With all it's misinformation etc, it shapes worlds and the pluriverse. A good book of his is "reassembling the social".

As Latour says “… America before electricity and America after are two different places; ….” In the same way, America with cell phones is a different place than America without cell phones. Those differences are how we recognize a quasi-object."
Sarah 683385

# data[].attributes.body
Like other students have stated, I found these two chapters to provide important insight into oil as a quasi-object and Cofan culture, but also leave a bit missing when it comes to the authors bias within his writing. A few statements made by Cepek follow the common inclination of anthropologists to form assumptions and attribute meaning which ends up diluting some of the intricacy of the situation. For example, he wrote "Cofan people have gradually learned, and often forgotten, what the petroleum industry has done to their bodies, lands and lives" when talking about their willingness to bathe in the river sooner than he felt appropriate. I find it unlikely the coffin people have 'forgotten' the impact of the petroleum industry, and this sentence minimalizes their experience and knowledge.

# data[].attributes.body
I completely agree with you about how these chapters were written—but I especially agree with you when you said you “wonder bout how accounts of Cofan experiences are so often told by non Cofan people and this is adding to that.” I feel like this idea is touched upon in the lesson a little bit where Cepek says that the Cofan people are not search for a savior yet the fact their story is most often told by outsiders kind of goes directly against that. —695210

# data[].attributes.headline
I read the Sylvain piece after Karlsson. The second reading took me deeper into the role of the anthropologist in the politics of ethnography and the associated responsibilities the researcher must shoulder. The Sylvain paper further helped me truly understand certain foundational concepts in social and cultural anthropology especially the theories of recognition and its relationship with essentialism. I am glad I spent some time on this paper because it has given me a framework to contextualise studies from different parts of the world through the lens of identity-based theories.(Comment posted by Kavita Natarajan; SOAS ID 694599)

# data[].attributes.subject
I read the Sylvain piece after Karlsson. The second reading took me deeper into the role of the anthropologist in the politics of ethnography and the associated responsibilities the researcher must shoulder. The Sylvain paper further helped me truly understand certain foundational concepts in social and cultural anthropology especially the theories of recognition and its relationship with essentialism. I am glad I spent some time on this paper because it has given me a framework to contextualise studies from different parts of the world through the lens of identity-based theories.(Comment posted by Kavita Natarajan; SOAS ID 694599)

# data[].attributes.body
Cepek rejected claims that the Cofan people were living a survivalist life having become victims of oil. The Cofan's narrative continued alongside the destructive colonization and oil production. The continuation of their livelihoods has not been as indigenous relics, but is interwoven with oil, to the detriment of their health, but including technologies that (a) would not have been used previously by the Cofan, (b) would not exist without oil, and (c) have been vital in continuing some of the Cofan's culture (i.e. the car in order to allow the Cofan to stay self-sufficient though their immediate surroundings have been ruined by oil). A much more nuanced picture is painted through Cepek's narrative than that they imply others (their lawyers for example) have given. 627782

# data[].attributes.body
I found chapter 1 really engaging and enjoyed the story-like style of Cepek's writing as it helped me to stayed engaged with the content and ideas presented.
I'm yet to read chapter 8 however based on what I have read so far from chapter 1, I would have liked to hear more Cofan voices - i.e direct quotes from members of the Cofan community that share their personal thoughts and feelings regarding the oil industry in their local area.
Nana :-)

# data[].attributes.body
To echo some of the points from above, I found this piece harder to digest because of the use of terminology, therefore it took me quite a lot longer to read, however i do feel more confident and like i have a deeper understanding of what the terms mean now. I think that there were so many references to other peoples ideas / thoughts that it became quite confusing at times. This piece echoes Cepek's piece in the sense that indigenous communities should not be depicted as pre-modern, and to keep their culture they cannot be exposed to the benefits of modernisation. These salvage narratives dominated NGO portrayals in the media, and continue to do so now. The romanticised western ideal of the indigenous cultures really enhances the destruction of modernisation over the voices of the San community who have benefitted from aspects of modernisation.

I also found the social contract theory reference very interesting. But feel like i need to re-read this piece to fully understand it.

# data[].attributes.headline
responding to the importance of defining

# data[].attributes.subject
responding to the importance of defining

# data[].attributes.body
Indeed, Karlsson brought to light the 'crafting of the indigenous discourse' and how it is very top-down. I think they show, like Eliza mentioned, that it is a political tool as well as something to be self-identified with. What interested me most was the governmental fear of secessionism in India and therefore the rejection of the one group that was fighting for that. Whether the term 'indigenous people' is useful for broad policy is particularly complex, I am unsure where my personal position is on 'first-ness' and whether it should be the most crucial factor or one of many. 627782

# data[].attributes.headline
Karlsson and the definition of the 'indigenous'

# data[].attributes.subject
Karlsson and the definition of the 'indigenous'

# data[].attributes.body
I found Karlsson's argument especially interesting as I'd agree that strict defnitions regarding ethnicity remains a largely contested idea, even within non-indigenous concepts of ethnicity. However, I am more fascinated by the idea that these points of contestations can become highly politicized; the idea that these definitions can get tangled within larger political and economic contexts is rather frustrating, especially when it is to the detriment of the very indigenous peoples attempting to define their identity and rights. (612049)

# data[].attributes.body
I agree the section on foreign donors was interesting in their desire to play up the idea of indigenous essentialism. I found this article to have a lot of different concepts which required multiple read throughs, but this information was helpful in putting the other articles in perspective. For example, Sylvain writes that 'if our larger goal is empowerment, then indigenous people must achieve greater political presence in public deliberations" and "this cannot be achieved
if recognition requires that indigenous peoples advance insincere arguments by deploying strategic essentialism". I think this can be applied to the Cepek chapters and the struggles of the Cofan people to work within western political structures to accomplish their goals, but not reduce the complex history of oil in the region.

# data[].attributes.body
I think this piece is incredibly important and as a research topic more and more of us should dive into as states continue to co-opt movements as we as anthropologists/activists create them.  We as anthropologists have to be the ones to dissect the co-opted language that NGOs, the state and other development orgs use to promote their "sustainable development" goals and I believe that it is one of our jobs to translate to the public in accessible language that gives context to these organizations and their goals for development.  If you head to the UN food and agriculture organization website, you can find all sorts of round about language that encourages the privatization of agriculture systems without really saying it utilizing language created by actual indigenous and/or progressive movements

# data[].attributes.body
I also agree with my colleagues that there were elements of Cepak's work that seemed quite assumptive; it would have been good for him to back up some of his statements about the Cofan with their own words that clarify their actions rather than inferring meaning from their outward actions.

# data[].attributes.body
Cepek’s writing style was very pleasant to read, he explains complex matters in a very accessible and easy-to-read way. He gives a detailed description of the everyday life of an indigenous community affected by the oil industry in an insightful, raw and honest way. I could really sense that he had spent many years getting to know the community, learning from them and interacting within the community. I do agree with some of my fellow classmates with the fact that some of Cepek’s statements seem a bit romanticised and not necessarily substantiated. However, I got the feeling that it may be because I was only reading 2 chapters, but that if I read the entire book I would get a better understanding of the facts that support these statements. (695224)

# data[].attributes.body
I actually mostly agree with you on this one, but I do think that Cepek is in a pretty good position after living with the Cofan for so long and he does make sure to include their perspectives. But I very much agree that it falls into a common trap in anthropology where he is critiquing those who speak for the Cofan while also partaking in that speaking-for issue himself. He also admits to how different he is from them and how differently he views the situation so it's interesting that he still makes such strong claims about how they feel about their role in the oil crisis. (695065)

# data[].attributes.body
I found the classification of oil as a 'quasi-object' really interesting and helped to understand its multifaceted impacts, not just in this specific case-study, but also globally. The author made a few complicated concepts quite easy to understand, which I appreciated - however, I have the same issues as other students have already commented on. Although there is an element of self-congratulatory reflection on being an outsider representing the views of the community, in the chapters I read there were no actual quotes from Cofán people. I would hope that there would be more of an attempt to offer the actual views of the community, rather than the author's interpretation of their struggles. (695716)

# data[].attributes.body
I really liked how Karlsson addressed the role that anthropology can play in the IP's movement. Whilst I agree with Karlsson's conclusion that "the concerned anthropologist could have a role as critical interlocutor and partner in a dialogue". I also think it is imperative to allow indigenous peoples to have their seat at the table be part of the process of identifying who the indigenous peoples are.
It made me think of last week's TASA reading and how Gable described "Fieldwork [as] an intrinsically guilty act". Is the anthropologist obliged to assist the people they work with? Or is it their role to be objective and avoid "getting involved"?
Amy 694871

# data[].attributes.headline
Response to 695008- appreciation of narrative writing style

# data[].attributes.subject
Response to 695008- appreciation of narrative writing style

# data[].attributes.body
Similar to 695008, I also really enjoyed the narrative style of Cepek's writing. I found it easier to connect with the issues that were mentioned and immediately felt transported into the Cofán village. I feel that this is sometimes lacking in anthropological academic writing, so this was a particularly insightful and interesting interpretation of these issues. What I really appreciated within Cepek's writing was how he clearly commented on his own positionality within the community and how his own worldview - shaped his writings and understanding of the Cofán experience.  626705

# data[].attributes.body
The chapters were engaging and painted a vivid picture of plights faced by the Cofán community and the complexities of the issues of oil. While has brought some much needed modernisation to complement the indigenous way of life, it has also forced them to adapt and slowly lose their traditions and identity, really painting the quasi-objectness of oil. Will things change when oil is finally replaced? Probably not, today it’s oil but tomorrow it will be replaced by something else. The  fact that  the oil company is dragging their case first in Ecuador then to the US when the former did not judge in their favour is just another example of the might of capitalism holds in today’s world.

# data[].attributes.headline
Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui's perspective on 'Double-bind'

# data[].attributes.subject
Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui's perspective on 'Double-bind'

# data[].attributes.body
Bolivian sociologist (part Aymara descent) Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui, also uses (and criticises) this term to account for the paradoxes in which not only indigenous but also mestizo people of her country are immersed (2015, 2018). She proposes the idea of chi’ixi (that can be translated as mixed or stained) to overcome the need imposed by western culture to take positions in one side or ther other of the traditional/modern duality. She argues that there are ‘other words’ in between this contradiction which we can inhabit, and that these ‘zones of friction’ can be productive for ‘exorcising binarism(s)’ and rethinking indigeneity as situated in the historical present and not in the past.

Perhaps this is a poor and too simple attempt to explain her ideas. But I love her work ...

a bit more can be read here:

https://latinamericandiaries.blogs.sas.ac.uk/2018/10/08/ethnography-of-the-double-bind-a-conversation-with-aymara-sociologist-silvia-rivera-cusicanqui/

María José Jordán (685585)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ethnography of the Double Bind: a Conversation with Aymara Sociologist, Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui - The Latin American Diaries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Paulo Ilich Bacca (Lecturer in International Legal Ethnography, National University of Colombia) The following ethnographic exercise is encapsulated in a twin-track anthropological approach characterized by the methodological possibility of interacting smoothly between worlds that are both contra…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Ethnography of the Double Bind: a Conversation with Aymara Sociologist, Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui

# data[].attributes.body
It might be really unproductive.. but I am in the state of mind at this point to preserve and protect at all costs. I do think that indigenous communities around the world should have a seat at the table. I also am thinking. How can we rebuild a new structure for representation, access, recourses etc. feeling particularly angsty right now...

# data[].attributes.headline
The book depicts an Amazonian people called “Cofán”, living in Dureno, Ecuador. The extraction of oil in their habitat has resulted in a profound change to their daily life. The author lived with Cofán people for several years to write this ethnography and argued on the relationship between human and substances in an anthropological aspect.The book opened with a dramatic scene —— the anthropologist walked by the river routinely and saw a strange sheen on the surface of water, which looks like soap or fat. It turned out a crude leek, a regular accident happens to Cofán’s habitat. Only with hasty cleaning, the Cofán people, including the children, continued to drink, bath and play in the pool surrounded by thick and black oil.Oil has changed Cofán’s life in an ironic way. They abandoned primitive rafts, replaced them with ones with motor machines, which enlarged the circulation of fishing. They are also crazed on mobile phones, clothes and televisions. However, crude has entered everyone’s body with uncertain consequences. If not killed yet, one will die in cancer sooner or later. (694929)

# data[].attributes.subject
The book depicts an Amazonian people called “Cofán”, living in Dureno, Ecuador. The extraction of oil in their habitat has resulted in a profound change to their daily life. The author lived with Cofán people for several years to write this ethnography and argued on the relationship between human and substances in an anthropological aspect.The book opened with a dramatic scene —— the anthropologist walked by the river routinely and saw a strange sheen on the surface of water, which looks like soap or fat. It turned out a crude leek, a regular accident happens to Cofán’s habitat. Only with hasty cleaning, the Cofán people, including the children, continued to drink, bath and play in the pool surrounded by thick and black oil.Oil has changed Cofán’s life in an ironic way. They abandoned primitive rafts, replaced them with ones with motor machines, which enlarged the circulation of fishing. They are also crazed on mobile phones, clothes and televisions. However, crude has entered everyone’s body with uncertain consequences. If not killed yet, one will die in cancer sooner or later. (694929)

# data[].attributes.body
I think the dilemma faced by Cofán people is just a wonderful metaphor of modern people. We are all in the complicated relationship between spirit and modern substances, like oil. Our normal life depends on oil and its deriving goods. In the meanwhile, it also changes our body and our mind. Concentrating on and debating on Cofán is not only aimed to preserve their native culture, but also to reflex everyone's life. (694929)

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed reading this article, and it left me with a lot to think about. Like many of us, I also wondered if the author presented an idealised view of the native population as happy and joyful, as the image of children laughing and playing next to oil covered vegetation is fairly grim. The implication that this is somehow a happy scene felt like it sanitised the reality of the situation. No doubt there is still happiness in this community, but I felt this view was patronising and infantilises the community and their response to the situation. Perhaps I am ignorant to the complexity of their situation, but I felt the author misrepresented this aspect. 685469

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with 695008 and others above that Cepek's way of writing about the issues that Cofán's people have to face is very valuable.  Of course, it is important to remain critical to issues of positionality, privilege, power relations and so on (to which many have shown concern about above). But I believe pieces like this, that manage to tell complex stories about injustice in a way that is more accessible and compelling to a broader audience, are extremely important. (María José Jordán 685585)

# data[].attributes.body
It's interesting that while Indonesia chose the ‘everyone is equally indigenous’ approach, a stone throw away is Malaysia where indigenous groups are given rights/status (Bumiputera), yet the struggles they face are still the same. In both context, the state is the one who gains. Wondering how much clout the indigenous community will be able to get at COP26 (696247)

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed this reading and felt that the writer did a beautiful job with the way he  presented his words in an easily accessible and relatable manner without comprising on complexity - I'm highlighting this because I think having examples of good writing is so important especially for a discipline that relies so heavily on conveying ideas through the written word!

Beyond that, one part that made an impression on me is - in the spirit of the commitment to showing a nuanced, real portrayal of the Cofán people, against the often essentialised, black and white portrays of indigenous peoples - is the following example:

"Although many Cofán people have clear memories of paddling and poling dugout canoes, none want to return to the days before they had gasoline-powered motors. The technology allows them to travel far and fast with little effort. It has been key to their ability to maintain their lifestyle in a transformed environment. With gasoline, they can hunt and fish at locations distant from Dureno’s central settlement and return the same day. With so few resources remaining close to their homes, they would have had to abandon their subsistence practices long ago were it not for oil-powered mobility."

This example disproves the overly romanticised image of a people that are simply victims longing for a past, as well as imagery of the exactly opposite sort of stoicism. It shows one way in which oil interacts complicatedly with peoples lives - how it has effected their way of life, and the ironic way in which - while bringing harm - has also allowed for preservation.

# data[].attributes.body
The article brought up many points that were interesting but the one that stood out to me was the one that discussed the "double bind". It is applicable to many societies and especially the indigenous communities. Change and growth are great things, and people should not feel that if they do that, they're giving away parts of themselves away nor should they fear that their authenticity will be questioned. (Sarah Maghrabi 695996)

# data[].attributes.body
The picture Cepek paints of this community is vivid. The author's prose is a welcome break form texts filled with jargon and I think this text compliments well a more academic text on the same subject. I found the understanding of Cofán’s message as a ‘political balancing act’ fascinating. The idea that they are simultaneously victims of oils ‘slow, confusing and ultimately unknowable violence’ who deserve compensation, and that they are ‘committed survivors’ determined to maintain their autonomous cultural identity. If either side is overemphasised, the other loses meaning and impact. This ethnography depicts the complexities of indigenous populations existence, and relates to Li's idea of ontological multiplicities - for example the Cofan's economic boom post spill (p8), the layered understandings of oil are portrayed well and a romanticised image of indigenous communities is questioned. (685899)

# data[].attributes.body
I really resonated with this piece by Cepek as it captures the heart of the issue and humanises their plight.

The part I found to be particularly saddening was the impact this has had on the identity of Cofan people. For instance, Cepek can hardly believe their persistence in using the water, despite being told how contaminated it is. However, these are people that have grown up in reciprocity of the land and indeed see it as a kin and an extension of themselves. In the span of one life time they have seen their lives, which may be perceived as simple or intentionally refusing modernity by western standards, completely change. However, this relationship with nature is fundamental to who they are as a community. As Cepek poignantly writes, "in a striking lesson, oil taught the Cofan that the forest exists because humans allow it to" (2018:240).

The dismantling of their community and cooperative lifestyle is further damning. "Oils ability to sow discord" (Cepek 2018) is testament to the intentional, manipulative acts of the oil corporations to fracture the land and the people for selfish, capitalist gain with no repentance.

687345

# data[].attributes.body
The lack of quotes in the reading do leave the question of that gap between inferring and what members of the community might say and think in their own words. I wonder if Cepek left out quotations to stick to the narrative style that makes this piece of writing to accessible, and whether than compromise was worth it if it means potentially falling into the same trap regarding representation and speaking for/over people that he criticises.

I do wonder though if his published work can be used in the legal battle against Chevron, something directly, materially beneficial (relating this to the question he and some of my classmates asked about material needs being addressed or not)?
(676013)

# data[].attributes.body
This reading did a good job at illustrating how First Nations people really have a different way of relating to an ever-changing (natural, social, political) environment. In an attempt to describe the ways in which the Cofan people lived, the author also admits his own interpretive limitations. These limitations include the author struggling to comprehend why the Cofan people still go swimming in the polluted river-water. He writes: "The more I failed, the more I realized I was playing the familiar role of the clueless, patronizing gringo." Clueless, because we don't relate to the environment in the same way they do. Patronizing, because western-thinking has too often conceived its relation to a natural environment to be the right one. However, we come to notice the perverse effects of our extractive economies when confronted to the fate of the First Nations people. Embracing the alternative and multidimensional ways in which human beings can relate to their natural environment seems to be an essential aspect of contemporary anthropology. Especially when confronted to questions relating to sustainability and climate change.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think your point is entirely unproductive. Preserving and protecting is essential for them to be a part of the future. And I definitely agree that the indigenous communities deserve a seat at the table.
(Sarah Maghrabi 695995)

# data[].attributes.body
To answer your question directly, I believe that, as soon-to-be anthropologists, we ought to be aware of the fact that using a general term to describe the multidimensional ways indigenous live is dangerous. Just as we saw in the reading of Cepek, the way in which indigenous people relate to nature drastically differs from the dominant western-centred narrative. It does so in ways we could potentially never come to understand. However, I believe that from a political, social  and economical point of view the usage of this term could perhaps shed a light on the systematic ways in which indigenous people are oppressed, racialized and discriminated against by the state. (694741)

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think that yours is an unproductive view point at all. I wholeheartedly agree that protecting and preserving IP and their knowledge/ observations is utterly vital. They should have a seat at the table, not just because as basic human rights, their needs are as important as everyone else's, but because we stand to learn so much from their connection to nature and land. Look for example at regenerative agriculture which is essentially a return to indigenous practice and reciprocity with the land. Furthermore, their understanding of contained and managed forest fires which some in the US are advocating for a return of to counteract the horrendous and far too frequent wild fires.

687345

# data[].attributes.headline
Challenged my thinking on development and relevant programmes + response to 687088

# data[].attributes.subject
Challenged my thinking on development and relevant programmes + response to 687088

# data[].attributes.body
Looking at development through an indigenous lens has challenged my thinking.  The idea that "we are living in an already developed world threatened by forces of de-development", really makes you question the common and current approach/understanding of development. As 687088 explained, it is important to investigate the strategies and programmes that create less and less room for alternative approaches and solutions to global challenges, such as climate change - giving more access and subsequently power to the economically strong.

# data[].attributes.body
In Cepek's chapter 8 he mentions that some had described the Cofán people as 'sellouts' for realigning themselves with the Ecuadorian state. This stems of a failure to understand why indigenous people living in poverty would like investment in their regions and communities, despite the environmental impact. This could have a relation to an essentialised view of indigenous people as  naturally being environmentalists.

# data[].attributes.body
In the first chapter, the author tries very hard to depict this paradoxical condition for the indigenous communities. On the one hand, they need helps from the outside world. On the other hand, they still want to be remembered as a people with a culture, a language and a way of life not just the victims. And I feel like this is quite similar to the rape culture society when the whole society wants a perfect victim who is destroyed but also shows the strong spirit against the harm done to him/her.

# data[].attributes.body
I think every part of the society should do their effort to change this condition. For example, the media and Youtube Vlogers can continue doing their films to let more people know about it. Even if it seems to bring few results, we should not think it is less valued to do so. Tingting YE 695184

# data[].attributes.body
I resonated very strongly with your observation of romanticization. While I started off appreciating the style and language, the positioning of the author seemed very off, especially when they seem to consider themselves to be a collaborator. The statements claiming happy and cheerful dispositions of the community then seem to be a projection exercise by the author, with possibly no corroboration from the peoples themselves. (Comment by Kavita Natarajan, student ID 694599)

# data[].attributes.body
I love Sarah's way of summarizing this article, and your question is very thought-provoking. I also feel in the same way that there is not too many choices for San to gain political voices.

But another thing I want to share is the feeling that San didn't care about whether their so-called identity was lost, because the first thing come to mind would be how to survive when their lands were taken. Though their strategies lack long-term consideration, what pushed them to do so? The critics of 'strategic essentialism' looks like a belated action or advice for me.