# data[].attributes.body
"The West demands too much of contemporary native peoples, the Cofán included. It hopes to make them into tragic symbols of its worst crimes while portraying them as wise beacons who offer a superior and authentic way of life, even today."

This quote in the reading really stood out to me and builds upon what was discussed in the lecture and the other readings regarding how indigenous people are perceived and defined.
Karlsson's reading highlights the difficulties in defining who indigenous people are as well as the importance in hearing and listening to the voices of people who choose to define themselves as such.
In the quote above, Cepek neatly shows, maybe without consciously realising it how it is the West who currently controls the narrative and image of indigenous people.

------
In response to some of the above discussions surround the use and inclusion of black and white images. It's true the styles of the pictures remind me of Lee Jeffries work with homeless people in the U.K. I found however that Cepek chose to include different portraits he took of the family he stayed with which offers more nuance than simply offering an essentialised image of Alejandro in his shaman outfit.

Claire Bate-Roullin

# data[].attributes.body
“Even more jarring is the joy and meaning they find in their lives. They are poor, sick, and unable to maintain many of their most valued traditions. Their sense of themselves, though, remains strong."(2018: 10). This quote from chapter 1 of Cepek's book, "Life in Oil" to me is what stood out as a subtext theme questioning What is poverty? and What is humanity? from the perspective of the indigenous. Just like Ananya Roy's argument on Dharavi-dwellers (largest slum in Asia) being a symbol of survival and entrepreneurship in squalor, Cepek too is providing a similar narrative of humanity and adaptation of the indigenous community "in Oil". However, I wonder not what Cepek has projected but whether the Cofan view themselves as poor? Whether the Cofan view themselves as a category or simply humans with a different reality? It also made me question, as anthropologist while as seen in the above quote, is our role to link the tribes lived experiences (as is) with existing top-down discourses to nudge critical dialogue specially within the developmental context or to be a platform to voice their perspectives and needs? Which is more ethical?

By Priyanka K.

In response to Priyanka's note:
Is our role  - as anthropologists - to link the tribes lived experiences (as is) with existing top-down discourses to nudge critical dialogue specially within the developmental context or to be a platform to voice their perspectives and needs? Which is more ethical?

> I believe that ethics can be applied to both scenarios, in an equally polarised sense, according to how the anthropologist chooses to portray their interlocutors experiences, in what extend they are given agency in what is implied.
In the case of Cepek, he does not only link the Cofán people's experiences to the wider discourse of the extraction industry for the sake of studying economics and development, but he also further takes leverage of his position as the platform of their voices. i.e. "My Cofán friends asked me to take pictures of the disaster. They

wanted to record and publicize the event so that other people, in

other lands, could see what was happening." (Chapter 1, p.4) - he calls them 'friends' and a twenty-year long relationship with them, yet still expresses how difficult it is for him to adopt an insider's perspective an fair portrayal of their experiences: "For an anthropologist, the questions are strange and uncomfortable... Writing those words fills me with ambivalence. I doubt this book provokes the sense of unambiguous tragedy..it is clear that Cofán people continue to enjoy their way of life, battered as it is". (Chapter 8, p.245).

Eleni - 686974

# data[].attributes.body
Essentialism vs constructivism in Sylvain was super helpful in understanding the theoretical frames through which we may 'make sense' of indigenous realities, but throughout the debate it was striking how little the San people’s opinions were articulated. The theoretical debate does not account for the fact that the San are individuals with diverse wants and needs. I did not feel like we had heard their story despite the debate being about their lives.

This reminds me of Hugh Brody ‘The other Side of Eden’ in which he recounts a court case in the 1980s (Delgamuukw v. the Queen) where the testimonies of chiefs were ruled as inadmissible because they were based on oral histories counted through stories, myths and songs. The ruling was later overturned , but I think in many cases we still ask indigenous communities to fit in Western categories of thought, as if Western people had a sort of hegemony over reality, and certainly over what counts as proof. On the one hand this seemed to me to be something most are conscious about, and yet we seem to reproduce these models of thought over and over.

Marie

Response from Karen: I had exactly the same thought as I was reading this. She presented the various 'sides' to the debate, but I didn't feel like we really got a sense of how the San people view themselves or the different ways different San feel, as there's not likely to be one San voice.

Response to Marie

I liked how she set debate within the context of anthropologist study and it helped me gain more of an understanding but yes I agree that’s she failed to represent the voices of the Sans and may have fallen victim to what she earlier stated “ethnic distinctions are a product of colonial class formation, and race and ethnicity are politically vicious fictions that mask class inequalities” by not including and promoting the voices of indigenous peoples and she would have done better to include true to life accounts of the San community.

Zoe

Yes, probably Sylvain has given more weight to the theoretical construction, and ethnography is not enough. However, it still have something help us to understanding some general challenges and ideas about indigenous people anywhere. Maybe it the point here this article.

Bo Yang

# data[].attributes.body
I enjoyed Sylvain’s article, and her way of challenging the idea that essentialist and (de)constructionist views of indigeneity are polar opposites: as she states, both are shaped by an underlying racial epistemology that portrays the San as ‘pre-modern primitives’. I also agree with the way in which she presents the ‘dangers’ of strategic essentialism. As she puts it, strategic essentialism is only necessary in an environment “in which the assumption is already in place that indigenous identities are essential and primordial, and so, strategic essentialism sustains the very stereotypes that make it necessary” (260). At the same time, however, I was made uncomfortable by the way in which she portrayed essentialist strategies of indigenous actors as ‘insincere’. After all, is ‘insincerity’ any different from ‘inauthenticity’? If anthropologists have rejected the notion of authenticity, how is it acceptable for non-indigneous academics to label indigenous strategizing as ‘insincere’?  (Edda 667994)

Response to Edda and Marie:
I echo both your observations - overall I found Sylvain construct an argument that was meant to resolve an intellectual debate "about" indigenous representations, without centering it around their voices. I also think the Cepek article neatly turns around Sylvain's arguments - Cepek has actually shown that both politics of recognition and politics of redistribution count (i.e, the Cofans want both material compensation and cultural preservation of their language), and as long it is the indigenous groups that are deciding what is important to them, the possibility of racialization is limited
-Anuradha-

# data[].attributes.headline
Tsing, Anna (2004) Friction : An Ethnography of Global Connection:

# data[].attributes.subject
Tsing, Anna (2004) Friction : An Ethnography of Global Connection:

# data[].attributes.body
Anna Tsing speaks of the new social movements that arose in the late twentieth century as 'vehicles of protest'; these include human rights, ethnic identity politics, indigenous rights, feminism, gay rights, and environmentalism.  Critical environmentalists endorse local or indigenous knowledge as the counterpart to universalist expertise.

The scholarship is divided across audiences:
(A) those who address themselves to cultural theorists stress the formation of new kinds of disciplinary power, accepting the universalizing logic of liberal sovereignty and biopower
(B) those who include activists in their audiences stress such movements’ potential, alerting us on the urgency of particular cases.

"The knowledge that makes a difference in changing the world is knowledge that travels and mobilizes, shifting and creating new forces and agents of history in its path." p.8

Eleni, 686974

# data[].attributes.body
This article was really an eye opening one. The essentalism vs constructivism debate is one that can really be applied to much of what the anthropologist does. However, Sylvain's article really comes to show how at times, even within activist work, theory falsly overrides issues where the voice of the soicety studied by the anthropologist is what really should be heard. Representation is complex and can often become how we see a community rather than how the community sees itself.

-RIwa

Response to Riwa (Eloise):

I completely agree, and although I found this paper hugely informative in the way that Indigenous rights debates are structured in a legal, moral and practical sense, I did find it bizarre that there was little to no exploration of how the San wish to be represented/see themselves. This especially seemed pertinent around questions of class vs. culture, and modernity vs. preservation.

# data[].attributes.body
lI found this a very thoughtful piece of ethnography that provided a meaningful reflection on where anthropologists can contribute to the many challenges of today's world. Conscious that the 'Cofán people are not in search of saviours,'  he instead aims to help make their stories more widely known. 'Across the world, people like the Cofán live on top of the resources that have become essential to our lives. The

least we can do is hear what Cofán people have to say,'  This approach feels very powerful not only in indigenous issues we're discussing this week, but in areas like climate change etc (all related of course), where too often the arguments are technical and lose sight of the real people impacted. - Karen

Response by Sarah M: I agree, and as you I particularly appreciated how he is stressing that Cofán so not need a saviour, this the anthropologist show that compared to other "technocrats" he is reflecting and conscious of his non-savior role. Moreover, I appreciated how he did not construct a simplistic analysis, but was keen on portraying the ambiguities, the bad but also the good aspects of oil in the society.

Response to Sarah M:  I enjoyed Cepek's writing style - it made the reading more accessible - and his somewhat deeply personal and individual approach to the lives of Cofan people. At the same time, I'd like to think that the anthropologist can employ a language of "political positionality and interest" which moves the debate beyond that of a "saviour-victim" dichotomy. If Cepek had left his professional sense of self aside or moved beyond it - continuously negating that he was not a lawyer, not a politician - he might have had an opportunity to at least add his own political stance and interest, as an individual, and a professional anthropologist. Why point out the ambiguities of the live he has lived with the Cofan for decades, without attempting a response here? (Julis)

# data[].attributes.headline
Conceding to oil as a tool for resistance

# data[].attributes.subject
Conceding to oil as a tool for resistance

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed this reading and particularly liked the more visual ethnographic elements of the text. I think Cepek's ethnography is notable in its refusal succumb to the language of passive victimhood. Whilst Cepek does not shy away from depicting (including visually depicting) the sheer destruction that oil has wrecked, he is very careful to emphasise the indomitability of the Cofán in the face of oil induced suffering they are forced to endure. He concludes chapter 8 with the observation that 'the people of Dureno convinced me that oil has harmed them in profound and painful ways. They also convinced me that they are still here, learning and fighting' (p 246). What I found particularly interesting was the tacit references that Cepek makes to the way in which the Cofán indirectly harness oil as a tool of their indomitability- to fight against and maintain their sense of selves in the context of this oil induced plight.

Claudia

Response to Claudia by Sheu Jeen
I agree with you and I think that Cepek provided a holistic view that not only ascribes agency to the Cofan, but also highlights the interdependencies of the community with oil, as a destructive and polluting element but also potentially an empowering one. It also forces us to reconcile with the fact that our lives are intricately bound with natural resources like oil and other minerals, and makes us question how we can ensure a more balanced and sustainable relationship with these elements such that we can maximise the utility but also minimise the harm to communities and ecology. Not easy questions but certainly important ones.

Response to Claudia by Marie:
I also deeply enjoyed the visual elements. I felt they  really helped to situate the reader and make the space more tangible. The pictures could be stand-alone pieces of visual anthropology and still manage to convey part of Cepek's arguments. I wonder if the chapters would have suffered from lack of photos, and what other means than text can be used as effectively in anthropology.
Response to Marie:
Agreed, the pictures themselves could be a visual ethnography and tell a story.
Response by Sarah K

Response to all: What did you guys think about the photos and how they were styled? Why these very black and white (monochromatic?) frames into their world? I don't want to re-type my whole post/argument, so please read it (titled 'A bit monological) if interested :-) Jacob Heath 685615

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed reading both chapters of this ethnography, in both the tone of the writing and the use of photographs. For me when reading this paper, I felt parallels with Todd's paper from last week in her call give to remove the silences of indigenous people in the discourse of climate change and resource extraction. Cepek’s ethnography shared the largely unknown and often overlooked stories of the Cofán people of eastern Ecuador, this helped to ascribe them with agency as well as situate the reader to consider the direct impact on this group of people who live on top of the resources. Worthy of note was his refusal to let the Cofán people become powerless victims instead illustrating them as surviving, fighting and learning even though the “oil has harmed them in profound and painful ways” (p.246).
-Rebecca Luff

# data[].attributes.headline
The chapter explores the  power imbalances that occur to communities with little wealth and  no democratic superiority. It is clear that power structures, government and aid agencies and news reporters that come by severely underplay the environmental effects from crude oil leaks so that business can continue to thrive at the expense of cofan individuals. Cofun individuals thus do not feel safe and are untrustworthy of all western citizens even if they genuinely seem as though they care or want to help. The analysis here shows that despite the utter disrespect and injustices to cofun people their social lives and spirit have been unaffected, it is presented that they seem to be able to have happier and more freeing lives. I feel that it is deeply concerning that governments, aid agencies, business professionals and medics happily accept the fact they are continually stripping back a deep rooted culture and livelihoods of individuals and are offering nothing to aid their health and improve living conditions. governments should not be able to downplay the havoc they are causing to individuals because of the power imbalances at play. However the most saddening realisation is that this is not likely to change anytime soon and thus Cofun individuals will continually be waiting to see who will die next of what causes and thus the only feeling I have towards the poor Cofun individuals is a distinct admiration for their spirit and determination to maintain a distinct  sense of themselves, as a somewhat heroic metaphoric stand against the authority that underpins the basic liberties. leanne

# data[].attributes.subject
The chapter explores the  power imbalances that occur to communities with little wealth and  no democratic superiority. It is clear that power structures, government and aid agencies and news reporters that come by severely underplay the environmental effects from crude oil leaks so that business can continue to thrive at the expense of cofan individuals. Cofun individuals thus do not feel safe and are untrustworthy of all western citizens even if they genuinely seem as though they care or want to help. The analysis here shows that despite the utter disrespect and injustices to cofun people their social lives and spirit have been unaffected, it is presented that they seem to be able to have happier and more freeing lives. I feel that it is deeply concerning that governments, aid agencies, business professionals and medics happily accept the fact they are continually stripping back a deep rooted culture and livelihoods of individuals and are offering nothing to aid their health and improve living conditions. governments should not be able to downplay the havoc they are causing to individuals because of the power imbalances at play. However the most saddening realisation is that this is not likely to change anytime soon and thus Cofun individuals will continually be waiting to see who will die next of what causes and thus the only feeling I have towards the poor Cofun individuals is a distinct admiration for their spirit and determination to maintain a distinct  sense of themselves, as a somewhat heroic metaphoric stand against the authority that underpins the basic liberties. leanne

# data[].attributes.body
It is admirable that the spirit of the Cofun people remains, and that they are able to see light whilst living through so much darkness. I appreciate the intention of Cepek to give voice to the people, and to tell stories of their actual lives. I can't help but think though that the people of Cofun, and other Amazonian indigenous communities, have no other choice but to carve out a compromised existence. Clare W 677439

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed the two chapters of this ethnography, the writing was clear to follow and the images were a great visual aid. What I found most interesting is Cepek’s description of the paradoxical condition of life in Dureno. They have learned to distrust foreigners who promise to help because they have been failed many times before, and they realize the power dynamics that would play out for a successful resistance. Even the matter of reparations in complicated because accepting the governments assistance is agreeing to the continuation of the oil business in their land, and are considered sellouts for considering settlements. Another aspect is that life is now ambivalent ; while some members still think of the days before oil, but live with the realisation that going back is not possible, some cannot imagine a world without it.
Sarah Kazira

The ambivalence you discuss, the way they are forced to perceive themselves and the way they decide to is so difficult, at one point in the piece the author says they’re able to reimagine “the omnipresent commodity from a novel provocative perspective,” I really like your discussion of resistance too it’s very composed.
Skyler Oudega

Response to Sarah:
I agree with you, I think it is very interesting and significant that Cepek highlights the ambivalence of the Cofan in relation to oil. The Cofan enjoy aspects of modernity brought by oil, such as the ‘millenium community’ housing, and petrol motors. They are not opposed to modernity, as is often assumed indigenous peoples are. However, if they stress their capacity to survive and adapt to new conditions, ‘others wonder if oil has hurt them at all’ (12). This stresses the power structures that continue to undermine the ability of indigenous peoples to make claims: Western tropes of indigeneity continue to shape what is recognized as ‘authentically’ indigenous.
As Cepek aptly puts it: “The West demands too much of contemporary native peoples, the Cofán included. It hopes to make them into tragic symbols of its worst crimes while portraying them as wise beacons who offer a superior and authentic way of life, even today.” (12) (Edda 667994)

# data[].attributes.body
I feel like I’m being overly critical, too picky, etc, as no doubt Cepek is good intentioned and at least shining a light on the lives of Cofán people. Please do offer your opinion/correct me if I’m wrong about the following:

I was struck by how little Cepek elicits the voices of Cofán people. Especially when realising Cepek elicits the voices of big oil corporations and academics quite a bit; his own voice even more so, making the chapters very monological. And then struck even more so when thinking of all this in relation to Cepek’s photos; what purpose do they serve (although, I think the photos of oil in the river were very important)? The photos made me think of Steiner (2019), who comments a fair bit on anthropology’s colonial history with photography; how photography in anthropology, particularly on indigenous people, tended to be used to make anthropology/ anthropologist more scientific and modern, whilst capture indigenous communities as stagnant and premodern. The camera and its photographs freeze – quite literally – the community, culture and people in time.

Photographs were also often edited to erase any reference to things that show indigenous people as anything else contradictory to colonial beliefs. I’m not saying Cepek’s photos are the same as all this; but they are edited into these strong, evocative, silent, black and white frames (or is it a gaze?), that take us into the Cofán people’s world (this same type of editing is often done to refugees, or people who are homeless). So, it speaks to who is portraying who and why are they portraying in this way?

I think all this is rather crucial considering we’ve just last week heard from the likes of Zoe Todd, who emphasises how the voices of indigenous people have historically been silenced (and still are), excluded, ignored, or simply not invited to speak on matters that directly affect them – not dialogical but monological, like Cepek’s chapters.

Steiner, C. B. 2019. Reading Time: an anthropology of clocks in the history of photography. In Exotic no more: anthropology for the contemporary world (ed) Jeremy MacClancy, 337-362. London: the University of Chicago Press.

Jacob Heath 685615

Response from Sara (684725):

I think you raise some really interesting points. Although, like many of the students above, I find the Cepek's writing style pleasantly accessible and pretty engaging, for better or worse, I do agree that he centres himself in the narrative.

Whether this is a good or bad thing I think is debatable. On the one hand, as you say, the piece doesn't amplify indigenous voices anywhere near as much as it could. Local people are often anonymous, and paraphrased rather than quoted for example.

However, I guess there is some honesty/authenticity, almost, in Cepek's first-person narrative. He doesn't pretend to speak on the  Cofán's behalf, and I notice that he frequently mentions the implications of his outsider status on his experiences and interactions, i.e.:
- "They expected less of me than they would of a normal person, for which I was grateful"
- "being a gringo might increase my susceptibility to the river’s generally contaminated state."

In other words, I think that this ethnography is more useful for one potential purpose/audience - giving insight about fieldwork and anthropologist/interlocutor dynamics in an Amazonian context - than it is for the purpose of amplifying Cofán voices. In other words, raising questions about the different applications for, and audiences of, ethnography.

Response to Jacob and Sara

Sara, I agree, I really enjoyed reading both of Cepek's chapters, appreciating the lack of theory so as not to centre his own interpretations of the Cofan people, as well as making it more engaging! However, does him not being the author automatically put him in a place where he is speaking on the Cofan's behalf? I'm not saying there is an answer to this, but I think it's crucial to recognise that everything he says is somewhat skewed by his identity as a Texan man (despite what he says being much more nuanced than popular discourse, which was great). I agree with Jacob; why did he keep saying he was telling the Cofan's story, but not presenting at least one excerpt of what they had directly said? I don't think including a few direct quotes like this would have decreased his authenticity towards his claim of not speaking on the Cofan people's behalf, I think in fact it would have aided in it, and been much more useful than his disclaimers. As Todd claims, shouldn't we be working on creating space for indigenous people to form their own narratives and claims? It seems as if Cepek had a great opportunity to do this, and despite presenting a more nuanced and balanced understanding of the Cofan, I don't think he quite achieved a display of their own voices? But perhaps it is impossible to be completely neutral and not something that should be strived for? And perhaps anthropologists shouldn't be left with the responsibility to do so, their skill being to present their own interpretations? I'm not sure!
Emma (686644)

# data[].attributes.body
The Cofan community have tolerated terrible damage inflicted upon their bodies and land for decades and have been failed by the government in terms of compensation and restoration to their land rights. Oil contributed to deteriorating health of Cofan people which contributes, legitimises and sustains the view that Indigenous peoples can be viewed as ‘surplus humanity’ and without the same rights as other citizens who exist in non-indigenous communities.

It was noted in the beginning of the chapter the government suggested only 200 barrels had leaked when in fact it was estimated at 20,000 and I think the Cofan community could be better protected if the wider community stepped in and helped advocate for the rights of the Cofan people to help ensure they can receive apologies, medical care and future promises that land can be protected from future exploitation from the government. The first chapter made me think what would happen if the oil spills occurred on non-indigenous land and it would be interesting to see how the communities and government would act to resolve the situation, I would assume it would be more compensation than bottled water and tins of fish. These chapters also made me realise how we are all part of this problem as we live in a reality that is so heavily reliant on oil we are all contributing to these issues impacting the Cofans as well as other communities who are so negatively effected in various way by the oil industries. As members of the wider community, we should help to advocate for change and promote renewable energy sources when we can to being about sustainable living for both indigenous and non-indigenous communities.

Zoe

# data[].attributes.body
In the opening chapter 'Black water', Cepek walks considers the role of the Anthropologist. He feels like 'an imposter', 'angry, worried and frustrated', and 'patronising". His uncertainty, is then exacerbated when he is confronted with an oil spill which contaminates local waterways. He ask what must his informants think of him and other researchers who have visited: "Why did they 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?" What good is listening, when the damage is already done?

The cofan have been made to adapt to the extractive destruction of the fossil fuel industry which has already caused colossal, potentially irreversible damage. They have also met the environmentalists, documentary makers, journalists who claim to offer support, but with more intrusions and negotiations. Why, given their history, should they trust an anthropologist or an environmental lawyer to understand their history an their present?  "Outsiders have failed them so many times.
They expect little from the lawyers who fight on their behalf, although
they would love to be proven wrong." Cepek's tentative, but I think assured, answer is that the glimpse the fieldworker can gain of the Cofan's perspective can inform real dialogue - the anthropologist can allow the reader to step into someone else's shoes, imperfectly, but with care and correspondence: "Their ability to reflect on oil from a culturally distinct viewpoint offers the possibility of reimagining the omnipresent commodity from a novel, provocative perspective." If this provokes meaningful discussion and debate across cultural, political and historical lines and doesn't 'fix the Cofan in their difference", then does this mean his intrusion is justified?

Elliot

Response by Riwa:
I really enjoyed how Cepek reflected on his own fieldwork. While he questioned his role, he at the same time reminded himself of it, which is to portray as best as possible the issues faced by a certain society here the Cofan in Ecuador regarding oil spillage.
They have been forced by lack of initiative to adapt their lives around the spillage, which one would rather  believe they should have be compensated for.
The role of the anthropologist is not to fox problems, but to present it as best and most accurately possible to help find correct and suitable long-lasting solutions.

Response from Elliot:

I completely agree Riwa and I think this piece showed an excellent example of an empathetic and thoughtful anthropology. Learn with, rather than from.

response from Ali,

I also found this a compelling element of this piece of writing. Cepek talks about the ambiguity that the Cofan feel towards most of the people who come with the aim of helping. It seemed like much of the time the pre determined ideas and essentialism that journalists, researchers and campaigners arrived with completely ignored the complex attitudes of the Cofan people and projected a narrow identity on them. Cepeks approach to me reads as a wonderful example of anthropological reflective practice and pragmatism.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Lancet articles made me think about communication and language policy. If languages are not recognised by the government and do not have any legal protection, full access to information and services that we take for granted, including health [ education and employment] become harder or impossible. (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/dcal/sign-language-facts/faqs). First and foremost it is therefore important to consider access to information. For example, considering multi-generational living in many indigenous communities, awareness could help curtail spreading within their communities and educate about basic preventive measures. Based on access to information, minority people will further get a change to “develop trust” with providers.To prevent language and cultural death, language recognition must be considered: “As the burden of COVID-19 increases among Indigenous communities, it will invariably take a toll on elders, who are the reservoirs of language and history.” (The Penumbra) (675638, Anna)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Lancet articles made me think about communication and language policy. If languages are not recognised by the government and do not have any legal protection, full access to information and services that we take for granted, including health [ education and employment] become harder or impossible. (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/dcal/sign-language-facts/faqs). First and foremost it is therefore important to consider access to information. For example, considering multi-generational living in many indigenous communities, awareness could help curtail spreading within their communities and educate about basic preventive measures. Based on access to information, minority people will further get a change to “develop trust” with providers.To prevent language and cultural death, language recognition must be considered: “As the burden of COVID-19 increases among Indigenous communities, it will invariably take a toll on elders, who are the reservoirs of language and history.” (The Penumbra) (675638, Anna)

# data[].attributes.body
“The west hopes to make them [IPs] into tragic symbols of its worst crimes, while portraying them as wise beacons who offer a superior and authentic way of life, even today.” - 12

This quote beautifully, and hauntingly, highlights the critical importance for outsiders to be aware of how and why they view certain indigenous groups in the way they do, e.g. as the tragic case or the romantic lack of adaptability to the modern world. These communities are made up of a diverse group of living evolving people and are never as stagnant and unchangeable as many perceptions of them would have it.

Chris D

Response to Chris D - I agree. Like in Sylvain's paper, sometimes not enough importance is placed on the fact that there is much diversity within indigenous groups. Just like any other society. Good intentions by NGOs, etc. feed into racialised stereotypes and presuppose the idea that all indigenous people are actively seeking to retain their traditional livelihoods without embracing modernity. Their identity runs deeper than that.
(Hannah Abbott)

# data[].attributes.body
I think there is great value in emphasising indigeneity as a political strategy, and this can create enormous staying power for those communities under threat. I wonder, however, how hard the balancing act between top-down categorisation on the one hand, and a disaggregation of the definition of indigeneity on the other, will be. Is it important at least to engage with the former for the sake of positive state policy?

Chris D

Response to Chris & Priyanka by Anuradha
Yes I've been thinking about this too. What is the real value of having a category or a term called "indigenous" and if we indeed accept that it is necessary, can we make it do (to borrow from Sherry Ortner) - different kinds of work for us?

# data[].attributes.body
The debate on the “indigenous” versus “other marginalized groups” that Karlsson covered reminded me of similar debates in the categorization of “refugees” and “migrants”. In the former, who “came” first seems to matter, in the latter, the “reasons” why they left their home countries is what matters. As anthropologists, I daresay most of us would concur such constructs and categories have little value especially when they are applied top down, and self determination is key here. I also wonder if we should be engaging with indigenousness as a political reality, rather than that as a category. What would such an engagement look like? And how can this also shape the idea of the Anthropocene?
-Anuradha-

I found the insights Anuradha has highlighted quite practical. Specially regarding engaging with indigenousness as a political reality. I also wonder though, while indigenousness may have little value when applied top-down could the status though provide protection and become an identity to fight for, for the community. For a form of some form of humanity/group identity may be better than known at all or a negative one. For example, for the original tribal people living in Aarey Forests of Mumbai, the status of "we are the indigenous tribes, the original settlers" is somewhat of a prideful group category to fight for and offering some-protection, for otherwise they were being labelled as encroachers living in the jungle. even though the jungle (a jungle to outsiders) is their original home.

-Response by Priyanka

In response to Anuradha
Thank you, this is an interesting viewpoint and one that I found interesting. I think there is definitely a need for a political reality, because in reality marginalised groups are trying to be seen and included by appropriating their own situation to fit the "indigenous" shaped box, exposing a blindspot.
- Natasha S

# data[].attributes.body
“...life in oil is a form of slow, confusing, and ultimately unknowable violence,” got to the point of the piece, a serious threat to human societies at large right now. The slow burn not just of civil conflict but phenomena such as climate catastrophe make our temporal and visceral experience of humanity actively working against cultural and natural ecologies even more prolonged and complex. Living our traditional lifeways no matter our conditions or background, seems like the only thing one can do sometimes, to do otherwise is to lose your connection to place and community. The cofan dont just live passively though, the people described in the book seek “justice and reparations” gained through a “provocative perspective” and clearly have a strong sense of autonomy.

# data[].attributes.body
This piece of Cepek I really enjoyed, and the visuals helped in visualising what the writer was writing about. Furthermore, this ethnography provided a great reflection on the contribution anthropologists have to the challenges that the world is faced with. In the two chapters Cepek really emphasised that the Cofan people are survivors and fighting even though oil has taken over their life. He wanted to show that they are not 'powerless victims' of the oil industry and government.

Tessa

Response: I agree that he does well to show that the situation is more complex than a simple 'victim/perpetrator' narrative. I think this can often be a very difficult point to make, because it runs the risk of suggesting that 'things aren't so bad' and thereby absolving governments/MNCs of blame. A good example of how ethnography can find nuance in a complex argument. (Will 676615)

# data[].attributes.headline
What does a "viable compromise" look like for indigenous communities?

# data[].attributes.subject
What does a "viable compromise" look like for indigenous communities?

# data[].attributes.body
I found this paper so interesting and thought-provoking. It certainly made me question some of my own ideas about the importance (or not) of the term 'indigenous'. I wanted a clearer conclusion than the one she gave though. She writes that "we should seek a viable compromise" between "indigenous rhetoric" and "postmodern theories of identity" but did not elaborate further. I would be interested to explore this more with other readings, such as Hale (2006) and Ramos (2003) which she cites.

(Hannah Abbott)

Response:

I agree, I found her argument compelling and the problems she raised very valid, but her solution seemed lacking. I found it to be a sort of fleshed out restatement of the original problem. The categories of identity are so often oppressive, but post-modernist discourse can leave us without the tools we need to be able to fight against very real oppression faced by minority groups. Maria 687047

# data[].attributes.body
Great text, it made me reflect a lot (although I agree with some of the critical observations made above).

I am fascinated with this quote: “life in oil is a form of slow, confusing, and ultimately unknowable violence” (10). Indigenous communities don’t even know what they are suffering from, what they need to resist. In fact, the author says that the arrival of the oil industry and its effects happened in the blink of an eye. It is not the first time I read something similar. In her article about disaster capitalism, Naomi Klein uses the same expression: in the blink of an eye, communities that have existed for who knows how long are dispossessed from their environment, their routines, their traditions. It happens before they ‘can know what hit them’ (Klein). On their part, Texaco and the oil industry knows exactly what they are doing, what can be the consequences. Information is power.

This is the problem of the development business. It assumes that indigenous communities, as representatives of ‘more primitive stages’, know less than developed societies. It imposes a homogenized definition of progress/modernization. It allows private interests to guide the initiatives made in somebody else’s soil. It doesn’t disclose full information before asking for permission, in the cases in which that formality is maintained. Therefore: it promotes an imbalanced information and it creates an imbalanced power.

In other words, in the blink of an eye, development itself becomes a form of slow, confusing, and ultimately unknowable violence.

Can we make this violence knowable? Can we unwind the inequalities behind certain development discourses? Cofán people would not want to go back to a time without motor boats, but had they know the consequences of the oil industry would they have done something different? Is there a space for development without destruction/subbordination? - Laura Torres

Responding to Laura
I was also struck by the sentence “life in oil is a form of slow, confusing and ultimately unknowable violence.” I would argue though that the Cofan experience as shown by Cepak indicates how oil is an intrinsic part of the Cofan’s life, both for better and for worse. The levels of pollution are shocking yet partially accepted because there are no alternatives. Cofan take employment to clean up the oil spill and government housing paid for by the oil is taken while their health is sacrificed. And yet, they do not see themselves as victims and understand the politics of letting this happen. They have maintained their language, culture, knowledge despite losing land, nature and health. Cepek also highlights how the Cofan’s relationship to nature has changed from a positive, spiritual and nurturing one to negative and material that can harm and kill you. They have also adopted modernity, relying on oil to take them to hunting and fishing grounds as those close to home are destroyed. They remain self aware, dignified and politically engaged and focussed while Texaco denies responsibility and compensation. After so many decades of abuse, it is hard to see how this situation will ever be rectified until the oil runs out.

Susie

# data[].attributes.body
I liked the way Cepek frames his question marks on discourse around reflexivity in the text.  First, he presents the reaction to the oil spillage of the Cofan, which is one of 'familiarity' - to the point that the one that is the most struck by injustice seems to be the anthropologist.  So besides the attempt of explaining why the Cofan have accustomed themselves to environmental ruin, positionality becomes evident.
This is a point also raised in the lecture - being 'indigenous' and therefore being expected to fit into the discourse of 'exterminated' and 'victim' is actually the way we see thing, not necessarily the way the Cofan see it.  Also, he raises issues about the fluidity of the Cofan around time-space, which is also strange in a way, for example, talking about the way the village has actually moved around several locations in the last decades. Whilst this may well be part of the 'indigenous' life being close to nature, it actually is driven by other needs of the community such as managing generational competition and claims of leadership that arise when the new generation comes along.  So in a way, the reader is presented with two layers of interpretation - the Cofan's and the western eye.  Particularly intriguing to me were the descriptions of sciamanic practice and the way the Cofan saw  the 'new age' folks flocking down to try sciamanic practices and the Cofan receiving then with friendly perplexity exactly because they know that this is not part of 'western' culture.
Essentially, positionality in these respects is a way to observe dynamics that reflect the discourse of the 'indigenous slot' (from Karlsson).

# data[].attributes.body
What I found particularly haunting was the colonisation of the Cofán and their land within the last 20 years , repeating the same level of violence but in a 'blink of an eye' in the new guise of development.

Cofán's understandable mistrust of everyone that have 'tried to help them', capitalising on their life and land. From the the capitalist oil corporations taking over their land, to their own government & politicians providing help for those communities in need with projects like the "millennium community" in return for "implicit promise to allow even more oil development on their land", or the lawyers helping to fight their case against Chevron "But many doubt that compensation from the lawsuit will ever reach their community. Outsiders have failed them so many times. They expect little from the lawyers who fight on their behalf, although they would love to be proven wrong."
- Natasha S

# data[].attributes.body
this was a movie I came across last year. I really enjoyed it. Maybe you, too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS73P3hZvPA&t=7s&ab_channel=TIFFTrailers (675638)

# data[].attributes.body
I thought Karlsson’s article was thought-provoking and informative. What I found especially useful were the insights into the challenges of the indigenous peoples of India (especially the complex situation in the North East of India) and the critique towards indigenous leaders who spend considerable time outside the community and therefore become alienated from the daily struggles of local people. I couldn’t help but notice that most of the dominant characters in this article, Erica-Irene Daes (one of the previous chairpeople of WGIP), as well as UN special rapporteurs, Miquel Alfonso Martinez and Jose Martinez Cobo were all non-indigenous people. I felt doubtful about WGIP really fulfilling its aims if the narrative is largely led by people with no personal indigenous experience. I was glad to find out that from 2008 onwards the UN Special Rapporteurs have all been indigenous people, which is a very delayed, but welcome progress within the UN.
Hanna A.

# data[].attributes.body
The article draws on the issue of how to translate in local and specific context definitions that are originally global (or from a different context). In this regard, I liked the point made by the author: since the label of indigeneity has been used and appropriated by certain localities, there is little point in wondering if it is suitable; it makes much more sense to analyse why and how indigeneity has been appropriated, and what they mean, without assuming that indigeneity means the same everywhere.
- Sarah M (686607)

Agreed. I think that there always needs to be space in anthropological writing dedicated to defining terms specifically within the cultural and linguistic context/s being discussed, as the understanding, connotations and weighted associations can vary widely, even between different groups in the same society (for example, in a British context, language may be seen as positive, neutral or negative according to the class context). As researchers, asking interlocutors "what does XYZ mean to you?" is probably a good place to start in most cases. -Sara (682725)

# data[].attributes.body
This article raised a lot of interesting points, particularly this quote: “The disagreement is not over the evolutionary status of the San but, rather, over whether primitives should be preserved or modernized”. There seems to be an ongoing debate of whether indigenous peoples should be encouraged to maintain their traditional ways of life while eschewing the comforts and conveniences of modern lifestyles, or be “integrated” into mainstream society in order to fully reap the benefits of education, political participation, economic prosperity, etc. Clearly this is not always a straightforward argument as Cepek also highlights the complex relationship between oil and the Cofan, in terms of the negative impacts of pollution and dispossession versus the advantages that oil has brought for the Cofan by improving access for food procuring and livelihood activities. Ultimately indigenous peoples have the right to development as enshrined in UNDRIP but this must be achieved according to terms and visions set by indigenous peoples themselves. The question is how can indigenous communities assert their own identities and autonomy when the current global political order and organisations propping up the system seem hellbent on essentialising indigeneity to pursue their own interests and agendas?
- Sheu Jeen

Response to Sheu Jeen by Laura Torres:

Good question. I wonder if the very first mistake is to approach the issue in such binary terms: preserved or modernized, almost as in ‘to be or not to be’.
The word ‘modernization’ (or ‘development’) implies certain continuity: the improvement of something that already existed, the creation of something that allow people to go beyond what they already had. If anything (at least when it is well done) development means to preserve while modernizing.

But somehow, as we see in Cepek’s text, development applied to indigenous communities does not leave room to continuity. It dispossesses, it erases, it dissolves communities and it even harms the body (which, as Paul Farmer would argue, is another evidence of collective memory). Rather than proving that indigineous cultures are unable to survive modern development, these accounts show that modern development is denying indigenous cultures a space ‘to be’.

The dilemma of preserved or modernized becomes meaningless: nor development can be understood in absolutes, nor indigenous communities have a choice (either way, preserved or modernized, they are being vanished from the rest of society). Then I would ask: is this binary approach being used to create a fatalistic view over indigenous values/knowledge/customs (they are doomed to disappear)? To what extent is incompatible a fair definition of development, one that includes continuity, with ‘the current global political order and organizations’ interests and agendas’?

# data[].attributes.body
Cepek does an excellent job at framing oil as something omnipresent and ambiguous. He reveals the infinite relations that are inscribed in oil as materiality and attached to it immaterially depending on one's positionality.
Given that oil has been and continues to be quintessential in the (re)production of the 'modern' world, that is, from large infrastructures, to energy, to food, etc... Cepek crucially provides us with another perspective. I thought it was particularly powerful when Cepek, after having listed hardships that the Cofan of Dureno faced as a result of oil, e.g. dispossession, cancer, ontological destruction, etc..., that we all have likely consumed in one way or another the oil that is extracted from their territory, and have thus, been complicit with the injustice and violence of the Cofan of Dureno that is caused by the oil companies.
Marten (686321)

Response to Marten by Brigid.
I like the point you make about how Cepek hits us with our own culpability. It made me consider why only some anthropologists end up writing 'public anthropology' (e.g. Didier Fassin) which is targeted directly at the audience of the book to engage the public into some sort of change/action. I know Cepek says that it isn't his 'speciality' to go fighting for the Cofan in the courts, but I also find the "it increases awareness" idea of writing a book such as this a little bit of a cop out.

# data[].attributes.body
Cepek's discussion on the nuances of the Cofan people's relationship to oil highlighted something that I found surprising: that 'the Cofan's fame as oil's enemy was also constraining' (p241). What if the Cofan were taught how to work with the corporations, fighting for a more equitable share of oil revenue, rather than being taught how to 'confront their enemies' through 'collective action' and so on? I do not dispute Cepek's argument that oil has caused so much suffering, but I wonder if 'we' (the west) project our concerns for maintaining "original ways of life" onto them and what they might want? Oil is a pretty awful social fact of life for the Cofan, and it is not going away. But as Cepek says about the nuance, 'it has been key to their ability to maintain their lifestyle in a transformed environment' (p235). Maybe the efforts of outsiders should help them appropriate this resource since the landscape is already and irreversibly changed?
Brigid

Response to Brigid.

You hooked me  with 'controversial'.

I agree with your point about the west projecting their concerns for maintaining "original ways of life" . I believe this ties in nicely with Sylvain's article on essentialism. We  should not impose a static identity on others, and the Cofan might indeed want to seek new opportunities through oil. However, again we must not generalize. I believe Cepek wrote that many Cofans are now living diverse lives, living with various degrees of attachment to the forests and 'traditional' existences.
With regards to trying to take advantage of oil revenues, I have some concerns. Firstly, I am not sure how much bargaining power they will have in practice in claiming a percentage of the profits. Secondly, and in my opinion most importantly, I do not believe that any amount of that profit would make the Cofan choose to join arms with the oil companies as what the oil companies are destroying is worth far more to the Cofan. I know I run the risk of essentializing. Moreover, from an ethical stance, I personally do not think that any money could justify the wrong of the oil companies. Rather than providing help to the Cofan about how to cut a better financial deal with the oil companies, I believe it should be the imperative of the west to delink from oil as much as possible. Although this is idealistic, I think it must be fought for.
Marten 686321

# data[].attributes.headline
Response to Jacob, Sarah and Emma: I once came across a picture, I believe published by Magnum Photos which said: “can photography be decolonized?” I am a photographer myself and found this quote really conflicting. To me, this was one of the reasons why I wanted to study anthropology and engage in more long term observation rather than, for example, fast paced journalism. I also questioned whether film or photography would be my preferred medium, based on the fact that photography can be manipulated more easily than moving image (looking at one shot, rather than an edited assemblage!). A personal view, to me, is inevitable but what it comes down to is the integrity and experience of the researcher. I read this the other day:“In psychological terms, can someone who does not have the same life experience understand what another person feels and thinks”? (Parasnis 1998: xii)? On the other hand, Parasnis also notes that “although life experiences definitely influence the choice of issues one studies or the way in which they are studied, ultimately, in any academic inquiry, the thought has to be evaluated on the basis of its intrinsic merit, not on the sociocultural status of the thinker” (Parasnis 1998: xxi) Whatever we photograph it is always framed and manipulated. However, a photograph can also create awareness in an instant. For anyone interested, there was a very interesting talk held at the Frontline Club:https://soundcloud.com/frontlineclub/photo-london-event-the-state-and-future-of-photojournalism-in-the-21st-centuryAlthough I acknowledge what has been noted with regards to conveying the Cofán’s true voice, I think it should also be noted that Cepek has engaged with the Cofán’s for many years and speaks their language. Personally, I think that the value of good language acquisition is often entirely undervalued, especially since it allows to work more precisely. I found following quote interesting:“The more I failed, the more I realized I was playing the familiar role of the clueless, patronizing gringo. Cofán people are not in search of saviors, and they do not trust individuals who present themselves as such.”To me, this says a lot about integrity in general and that we should endeavour to meet everyone else on eye level. Most importantly minority people should be empowered and given a voice through official recognition. “The Cofán could never figure out what their (gringos’) motives were: Why did they 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?” (675638 Anna)

# data[].attributes.subject
Response to Jacob, Sarah and Emma: I once came across a picture, I believe published by Magnum Photos which said: “can photography be decolonized?” I am a photographer myself and found this quote really conflicting. To me, this was one of the reasons why I wanted to study anthropology and engage in more long term observation rather than, for example, fast paced journalism. I also questioned whether film or photography would be my preferred medium, based on the fact that photography can be manipulated more easily than moving image (looking at one shot, rather than an edited assemblage!). A personal view, to me, is inevitable but what it comes down to is the integrity and experience of the researcher. I read this the other day:“In psychological terms, can someone who does not have the same life experience understand what another person feels and thinks”? (Parasnis 1998: xii)? On the other hand, Parasnis also notes that “although life experiences definitely influence the choice of issues one studies or the way in which they are studied, ultimately, in any academic inquiry, the thought has to be evaluated on the basis of its intrinsic merit, not on the sociocultural status of the thinker” (Parasnis 1998: xxi) Whatever we photograph it is always framed and manipulated. However, a photograph can also create awareness in an instant. For anyone interested, there was a very interesting talk held at the Frontline Club:https://soundcloud.com/frontlineclub/photo-london-event-the-state-and-future-of-photojournalism-in-the-21st-centuryAlthough I acknowledge what has been noted with regards to conveying the Cofán’s true voice, I think it should also be noted that Cepek has engaged with the Cofán’s for many years and speaks their language. Personally, I think that the value of good language acquisition is often entirely undervalued, especially since it allows to work more precisely. I found following quote interesting:“The more I failed, the more I realized I was playing the familiar role of the clueless, patronizing gringo. Cofán people are not in search of saviors, and they do not trust individuals who present themselves as such.”To me, this says a lot about integrity in general and that we should endeavour to meet everyone else on eye level. Most importantly minority people should be empowered and given a voice through official recognition. “The Cofán could never figure out what their (gringos’) motives were: Why did they 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?” (675638 Anna)

# data[].attributes.headline
"After five decades ofencounters with the petroleum industry, the Cofán of Dureno knowan impressive amount about what oil has done to their bodies, theirway of life, and the Amazonian environment. Their ability to reflecton oil from a culturally distinct viewpoint offers the possibility ofreimagining the omnipresent commodity from a novel, provocativeperspective." (this is in response to my previous post) Here, Cepek does refer to the embodied knowledge with novel, provocative perspectives. Since this is the first chapter, maybe he does elaborate on this with personal statements by the Cofán in other chapters? (675638, Anna)

# data[].attributes.subject
"After five decades ofencounters with the petroleum industry, the Cofán of Dureno knowan impressive amount about what oil has done to their bodies, theirway of life, and the Amazonian environment. Their ability to reflecton oil from a culturally distinct viewpoint offers the possibility ofreimagining the omnipresent commodity from a novel, provocativeperspective." (this is in response to my previous post) Here, Cepek does refer to the embodied knowledge with novel, provocative perspectives. Since this is the first chapter, maybe he does elaborate on this with personal statements by the Cofán in other chapters? (675638, Anna)

# data[].attributes.body
A central theme saw oil colonise Cofán life, from the outside-in. Throughout this ethnography we see oil encroach on their land, in their bodies (through cancer and disease), in their forms of sociality and cooperation (with the introduction of wage labour), in their hunting (with the new presence and threat of Cocama landlords), in their fishing (with the introduction of motorboats), in the adoption of new commodities (smartphones). We know the homogenising impact of oil in spaces where it is readily adopted, but I thought it was interesting to see its pervasive force even where oil resisted. This exemplifies the difficulty of exercising individual agency in an omnipresent industrialised, extractive, capitalist economy, even where one is not an active participant. (Eloise)

# data[].attributes.body
"We can't figure out how to compensate indigenous groups for something that can never be recovered, which is their culture and their land." Donziger

A film as much about power relations as it is about the devastation caused by the abstraction of oil over decades, and by many players in the oil industry. What is missing from the story is the State, and its relationship to both oil companies and to indigenous people. Texaco say they are carrying out their work supported by Government. Today, the Government continue to allow extraction, whilst paying for new homes, and improved conditions, for indigenous communities. Whilst the lawyer representing the people, Donziger, is under house arrest, career in tatters, awaiting a potential 6 month jail term. The controversy of the case has overtaken the climate emergency.

# data[].attributes.body
It shone through this source for me, that in some sense, the global notion of recognition treats the indigenous as some circus animal which has to "perform" their indigeneity in order to receive recognition of their wishes and beliefs. I propose that everyone should accept instead, that different cultures do not have to "present their authenticity" in order to be acknowledged as an existing different perspective of the world. A San man articulates it this way within Sylvain's article: " “People must survive with their things—their culture and their goats.". He implies that they do have to place focus on integrating themselves into modern economy in order to make a living, besides nurturing their culture as well. One has to understand that the indigenous are not solely about expressing their quality of being different, and even when they do, most of the times it is not for having an aim in exchange for representing themselves. On the other hand the "NGO rhetoric" raises awareness of the physiological impact of "culture loss", and Sylvain too mentions that it is said, " failure to conform to essentialist imagery constitutes ground for dismissing claims to indigenous identity". So what should these people do? Focus on representing their culture, or on making a living? Of course this choice is not that strictly binary, but I would like everyone to see, that we cannot expect them to sacrifice their personal matters because otherwise their culture is getting eaten up by the surrounding globalism. It is a tough situation to say the least.

Andrew

# data[].attributes.body
As well as finding Sylvain’s exposure of the not so polarised debate between SI and GoB to be extremely eye opening (as others have mentioned), I also found the debate on what it means for indigenous groups, or groups working on their behalf, to use “strategic essentialism” highly thought provoking. Is it productive or destructive for marginalised groups (I think we can see this with women too - not to say feminist struggles should be compared to indigenous struggles...) to use their own stereotypes to their advantage? Is this not a form of “modernisation” and agency? Or is it merely furthering oppression and essentialism? What does it mean for various other groups who do not fit the “indigenous” stereotype that states want to see, like Catherine mentioned in the case of Bolivia for example? To me however, it makes sense that those who are in desperate need to achieve the rights to their land (for example) would play to the powerful’s wants and expectations - e.g. the San playing the “Bushman card” as they know it will play to the idea of them that is held in the “Western imagination”.  I think it’s perhaps foolish and problematic to expect this not to happen until (?) discourses shift, and a new structure for granting rights is formed.
Emma (686644)

A well argued point Emma. I think this article is more about the role of anthropology and ways of seeing and forms of representation. The neocolonial argument was also well made that by highlighting the "primitive" lifestyle, agency in the modern world is lost. The most realistic actors in this appeared to be the SAN NGOs who could see some benefit (and perhaps no alternative) to working with the GoB.
Susie

# data[].attributes.body
Sylvain explores how the San utilize a 'bush card', deploying an essentialist identity to advantageously work a system that relies on racial politics. This article contributes to a wider anthropological debate of indigenous activism, particularly, the instrumentalization of identity. Extending Sylvain, I argue that in secular, bureaucratic regimes that demand categorization, and submission to said categories, indigenous peoples are forced to self-essentialize, harmfully homogenized in the process. Denial of ontological perspectives, and livelihoods, means they must shape-shift to institutional identity politics. Sylvain emphasizes recognition requires a deployment of strategic essentialism. Whilst implicitly dangerous from the outside, many indigenous communities have  leveraged success, by playing up to stereotypical ideas, such as their harmonious affinity with nature as 'protectors of the earth', to monopolize on media attention, and garner international support in land cases.

Kitty

# data[].attributes.body
Eye-opening when Sylvain points out Mill's work on the social contract as historically being a racial one: the South African "Hottentots" as representative of a "state of nature" (257). It shows how forceful preconceived notions, stereotypical and categorical imagery is centuries after they first emerged. How can questions of preservation, and dignity of the San (and indigenous groups at large) be resolved in legal and political terms, if negotiations , social contracts appear to be racial by definition!? Dishearting as it stands.
(Julis)

# data[].attributes.body
It seems to me that the main argument by Karlsson is that the political uses of 'indigeneity' as a concept may actually restrict the import of the concept and the assumptions that political recognition proceeds linearly from the definition of indigenous may actually cause unintended consequences.  Karlsson is worried about 'what is left out' by the discourse of indigeneity.   First, when looking at indigeneity as 'internal  colonisation', improvements in political participation may in fact support the status quo, for example, when indigeneity's claims are those of political independence.     So the political discourse around indigeneity implies a pre-established definition of what is and what isn't recognised as 'indigeneity' and the range of prerogatives attached (or not) to the rights of the 'indigenous'.  Second, he takes an 'undecidability' approach and concludes that the institutional definition of  'indigenous' takes the specific definition of 'other than the white coloniser', and therefore forecloses discussions for minorities or groups that claim indigeneity outside of the context of contacts with white-colonisers-settlers.

# data[].attributes.body
As many students said above, Cepek in some cases have centred himself more, thereby some information seems monological. But actually, it is the anthropological style. There is no one anthropological knowledge could say that itself is the 'truth', but as anthropologist, they will show how they conduct their research and where their information and knowledge come from, by who and how. These things are opening to readers to judge.

However, inequality and conflict seem the key points in Cepek's content. I am more likely to know how to recignise the complexity or conflict of Cofan people's value with industrial rationales. In their own life, some evidences show that Cofans have 'forgotten' damage, but Cepek help them to recall.

Bo Yang

# data[].attributes.body
Thanks a lot for linking the article. I appreciate your analysis of the black and white photos and my general thoughts were similar to yours. I agree that Cepek could have done more to amplify the voices of the Cofan. I noticed that some students positively pointed out that Cepek was reflexive and ascribed agency to the Cofan, but shouldn’t these be the bare minimum expectations for an anthropologist? I didn’t find your thoughts overly critical and I think our standards and expectations for anthropologists should be higher if we want our work to have a positive impact. Simply being reflexive and not actively harming the communities we work with is not enough. Additionally, Cepek’s overly positive account of the missionaries made me uncomfortable and I would have expected a more nuanced analysis of their effects on the Cofan.

Hanna A.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Cepek illustrated something really alarming by talking about "Cofán people (...) not [being] in search of saviors and they do not trust individuals presenting themselves as such". Why would any indigenous group do? All they have seen of the modern human is how they can exploit and demolish their environment and others' culture. Why would they trust any of us trying to convince them about something which they should do "for their own benefit"? This is captured perfectly by the Cofán ignoring the author's warnings about the poisoned nature of the water. The alarming part is, that these kind of communications always run the risk of the indigenous ignoring the modern (and scientifically more educated) modern man's warnings, even those which they should actually consider. This way they have the potential of not avoiding certain man-made or natural catastrophes, solely due to the fact that they did not want to abandon their way of doing things against some outsider's recommendation, which is, given the distrust and inability to communicate adequately between cultures further apart, understandable to a substantial extent.

Andrew

# data[].attributes.body
Cepek must be credited for his efforts to offer a nuanced understanding of the Cofán’s complex relationship to oil and their agentic responses. He successfully provides a counternarrative to popular conceptions of ‘primitiveness’ and the need for saviours. I particularly enjoyed how his descriptions of Cofán life in oil revealed an everyday culture of resistance to petroleum companies; a refusal to be defined by the caused destruction. Nevertheless, I found the language and descriptive style of the chapters rather self-indulgent. Like others, I not only found the photographs somewhat disturbing, but noticed everything was recounted through his perspective. So despite promising to “hear what the Cofán people have to say”, I struggle to believe he actually listened.

# data[].attributes.body
‘If successful, our studies do not fix people in their difference and thereby isolate or caricature them. Rather, in the words of Edward Said, good anthropology fosters “coexistence and enlargement of horizons.” At its best, anthropology creates the conditions for dialogue—and even alliance—across cultural, political, and historical lines’

I love this quote because it perfectly encapsulates what so often seems to be the problem when using the term ‘indigenous’. It is othering and, perhaps more problematically, can force marginalised inhabitants to conform to a fixed understanding of their ‘culture’ in order to gain basic human rights. I agree with Cepek, anthropologists must fight against this caricaturisation of ‘indigenous’ people. Through ethnographies, we are uniquely able to provide fleshed out and rich depictions of the variety and complexity of indigenous life, whilst critiquing the label of 'indigenous' itself. Although, as Cepek also points out, we must be aware that we are just scratching the surface.

Maria - 687047

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.survivalinternational.org/conservation

This links WWF to colonial conservation  and human rights abuses in conservation. Sad.

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed how Cepek illustrated and discussed the Cofen’ people case from an ethnographic account. While we can see how his ethnography could be beneficial as a tangible product that can be shared to educate other communities about the struggles that the Cofan people face due to the oil spills, Chapter 8 also drives upon the possibility of the negative capabilities the power of the word of an Anthropologist can have over so many indigenous lives. Such capability drives upon questions about the political reality of the category of ‘indigenous’ that other padlet posts similarly drew upon, as it encourages questions over why the secondary account of an Anthropologist might have a more significant impact on the decision making over the lives of the Cofen people themselves, than the impact and value of the primary experience of the affected community themselves.

Veronika

# data[].attributes.body
I came across two short documentarias on the impact of oil and coal on the lives of indigenous communities.

The Shaman's Oil- The Cofan community

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGHp6Coatok.

Cursed by Coal: Mining the Navajo Nation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4uGCj6knVw.

I found them very helpful to put Cepek’s work into perspective, as there is a great focus on the narrative of the affected communities themselves.

Veronika

# data[].attributes.headline
Fine line between being helpful and patronising 

# data[].attributes.subject
Fine line between being helpful and patronising 

# data[].attributes.body
I enjoyed the documentary and thought it did well to avoid a simple victim-perpetrator narrative and consider the complexities of the debate (although the phrase 'David and Goliath' was used many, many times...)

I was struck by one scene in particular, in which lawyer Steven Donziger rejects the testimony of a Cofan man has prepared to give in a US court, in favour of his own version - essentially putting words in his mouth. On the one hand, he could be said to be providing legal advice based on his expertise, but on the other he was silencing the voices he was supposed to be giving a platform to, or at least heavily filtering them. It felt quite uncomfortable to watch.

That said, he has clearly done a lot to help the Cofan, and suffered much as a consequence. Will 676615.

# data[].attributes.body
The lancet article, plus the other readings really brought up the notion of traditional self-reliance versus modern dependency on the state. The traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples provides human independence, hence why it poses a threat to the state, and to capitalism. Why isn't more scientific research allocated towards what humans already know about this planet? Imagine how much more we could know? It's only taken thousands of years, but Western science is only starting to catch up with indigenous knowledge - these findings are however often fragmented. Integrating holistic and rational knowledge could provide symbiotic adaptation strategies for climate change, and restores indigenous rights to self-determinism. At the same time, this holistic information is often stolen. The Matsés, for example,  have only printed their encyclopedia on traditional food knowledge (Yanomami et al. 2015) in their native language to ensure that the medicinal knowledge is not stolen by corporations or researchers as has happened in the past.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901118300418?via%3Dihub
https://news.mongabay.com/2015/06/amazon-tribe-creates-500-page-traditional-medicine-encyclopedia/

- Tanita 685926

# data[].attributes.body
Karlsson draws attention to the categorisation of the indigenous communities with other marginalised communities, which I thought was pretty interesting as we have always pushed these topics and groups in one space, but there has been debates to showcase the differences that exist between these communities. Its pretty intriguing to see that eventhough we focus on the bigger picture, there are smaller frames that once again focus on power that we at times forget to look at. This article as a whole produced a lot of great comments and insights into the lives of North-Eastern indigenous people and their life and the struggles that they face, which led to another concept of how the word “indigeneity” is perceived differently by people around the world due to the distinctiveness that exists amongst each of these communities. We let the western definitions take over the meanings of these terms and wash off the history and cultural aspects that are connected to these groups, hence Karlsson allows us to move towards the unconventional meanings associated with indigeneity.
Enakshi
(685915)

# data[].attributes.body
I thought the approach to indigenous representations was very interesting in this article. There is a strange facet of western culture which seeks to both belittle and idolize indigenous thought and culture at the same time, both of which “other” indigenous communities. To add a layer of intersectionality, the feminist concept of “capacity for evil” can also be useful in exploring controlled narratives of indigenous groups in western society. Why do we assume indigenous communities lack the capacity to function in ways we assume are apart of a natural world of internal existence in western peoples?how does this leave indigenous communities and their traditions of thought outside of our hegemony on development and governance?

In response to Marie,

I had the same concern while reading this article. I really appreciated the approach to understanding the theoretical frames through which we make sense of indigenous realities. But I also felt that the San people’s opinions were not properly presented, it seemed as though there was an attempt to objectify the San people for the sake of argument which seems hypocritical.

jakob lewis