Description

Over the past century, ‘indigenous’ as a political concept has become internationalized and, more recently, has risen in vogue as environmental protection movements worldwide are increasingly framed as Indigenous resistance to the enduring ills of settler colonialism. However, despite its trendiness, ‘indigeneity’ remains poorly defined, historically contingent, and the answers to its most basic questions (such as ‘who is Indigenous?’) remain in flux. In Southeast Asia, both Western and internal colonialism have been instrumental in the legal and political construction of Indigeneity and its application to specific populations. Meanwhile, Indigenous concepts of indigeneity typically diverge widely from State definitions, especially where territorial sovereignty is at stake. Drawing on my field research in the Philippines (and the work of others in Southeast Asia), I will discuss the cultural and political conundrums perpetuated by this nebulous term, and why grappling with ‘Indigeneity’ – as well as pondering its future – matters more than ever today.

OONA PAREDES is Assistant Professor in the Department of Southeast Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore, and is the author of A Mountain of Difference: The Lumad in Early Colonial Mindanao (Cornell SEAP, 2013).

Description

Following the capitalist crisis in 1997/98, Indonesia’s economic and political reforms led to increased incorporation into global capitalism. This paper examines three major issues related to such capitalist development after reformasi. First, the motor behind the development of capitalism is a remarkable exploitation of labor. Second, the accumulation of capital through land-based industries has seriously assaulted the mass of independent poor producers. Third, evidence indicates that the appropriation of nature has become the underlying feature of capitalist development. In response to such development there is a growing anti-capitalist movement in the country. Thus this paper also examines the anti-capitalist tendencies in the country. I will restrict my attention to two major tendencies among Indonesian activists today. The first is “reformist anti-capitalist” activists who advocate for a more regulated capitalism and demand a role for the state in regulating the market. The second is “revolutionary anti-capitalist” activists, whose concerns go beyond reforms to the capitalist system.