Paper short abstract:

This paper examines euphemisms used by States to avoid recognition of indigenous status, while acknowledging special problems for marginalised sections of the population. It is suggested that labels such as ‘Remote Area Dwellers’ and ‘Historically Marginalised’ people tend to blur distinctions and impede participation in development on equitable terms.

Paper long abstract:

History shows many examples of states with indigenous peoples within their borders, who for various, sometimes well intended, reasons abstain or refuse to use in-group (endogenous) names for the group. Instead, euphemisms are used, often referring to a socially problematic situation.

The case of Remote Area Dwellers (Botswana about the San) or Historically Marginalised peoples (Rwanda about the Twa) are cases in point. It is suggested that such strategies are used in order to avoid recognition of an (implicit or expected claim for) indigenous status. The use of such universalizing terminologies may be politically correct according to some criteria, but tend to tend to obscure the analysis of the social reality at hand, and hence creates uncertainty about what would be the proper remedies. As an example, it is argued that significant changes in Norwegian policy towards the Saami are expressed in the change from paraphrasing by reference to language (Saami speaking), geography (areas with Saami population) or adaptation (reindeer herding), to a recognition of the Saami as a people.

The paper will seek to make a contribute to the discussion of implementation of the UN Declaration by analysing examples of state and colonial codification in history, changes in contemporary policies, as well as resistance to change. Discourse analysis will be used to analyse documents, policy statements and historical and anthropological records.