从时间和空间的角度思考愤怒——来自东南亚的思考

IF 0.2 Q4 GEOGRAPHY Espaces-Populations-Societes Pub Date : 2020-06-15 DOI:10.4000/eps.9628
I. Baird
{"title":"从时间和空间的角度思考愤怒——来自东南亚的思考","authors":"I. Baird","doi":"10.4000/eps.9628","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most people take it for granted that it is relatively easy to determine who is Indigenous and who is not. Indeed, in the Americas and Oceania, where a lot of settler colonialism occurred, Indigenous peoples are generally considered to be the descendants of those who inhabited these spaces prior to the arrival of white settlers. In Southeast Asia, however, there was plenty of European colonialism, but much less white settler colonization. This has made the question of “who is Indigenous” much more difficult to answer, and politically contested, as both ethnic minority and majority populations are able to credibly claim that they are “Indigenous” to where they live. Indicative of the contested nature of the issue, and following what has come to be known as the ‘salt-water theory’, most states in Southeast Asia stipulate that their populations are either all Indigenous, or that there are no Indigenous peoples within their borders. Yet new globalized conceptions of indigeneity are circulating, hybridizing and taking hold, albeit unevenly. Crucially, Indigenous peoples are now increasingly being conceptualized as “colonized peoples” rather than simply “first peoples”, thus partially uncoupling indigeneity from space and time. In this paper, I contend that relational ideas associated with indigeneity are perpetually changing and are best considered through the lens of time and space, concepts that serve as the foundation for assertions related to who is Indigenous and who is not.","PeriodicalId":42202,"journal":{"name":"Espaces-Populations-Societes","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Thinking about Indigeneity with Respect to Time and Space: Reflections from Southeast Asia\",\"authors\":\"I. Baird\",\"doi\":\"10.4000/eps.9628\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Most people take it for granted that it is relatively easy to determine who is Indigenous and who is not. Indeed, in the Americas and Oceania, where a lot of settler colonialism occurred, Indigenous peoples are generally considered to be the descendants of those who inhabited these spaces prior to the arrival of white settlers. In Southeast Asia, however, there was plenty of European colonialism, but much less white settler colonization. This has made the question of “who is Indigenous” much more difficult to answer, and politically contested, as both ethnic minority and majority populations are able to credibly claim that they are “Indigenous” to where they live. Indicative of the contested nature of the issue, and following what has come to be known as the ‘salt-water theory’, most states in Southeast Asia stipulate that their populations are either all Indigenous, or that there are no Indigenous peoples within their borders. Yet new globalized conceptions of indigeneity are circulating, hybridizing and taking hold, albeit unevenly. Crucially, Indigenous peoples are now increasingly being conceptualized as “colonized peoples” rather than simply “first peoples”, thus partially uncoupling indigeneity from space and time. In this paper, I contend that relational ideas associated with indigeneity are perpetually changing and are best considered through the lens of time and space, concepts that serve as the foundation for assertions related to who is Indigenous and who is not.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42202,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Espaces-Populations-Societes\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Espaces-Populations-Societes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4000/eps.9628\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Espaces-Populations-Societes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/eps.9628","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

大多数人想当然地认为,确定谁是土著人和谁不是土著人相对容易。事实上,在发生了许多定居者殖民主义的美洲和大洋洲,土著人民通常被认为是白人定居者到来之前居住在这些地方的人的后代。然而,在东南亚,有很多欧洲殖民主义,但白人定居者的殖民主义要少得多。这使得“谁是土著人”的问题更加难以回答,而且在政治上也存在争议,因为少数民族和多数民族都能够可信地宣称他们在自己居住的地方是“土著人”。东南亚的大多数国家都规定其人口要么都是土著人,要么在其境内没有土著人,这表明了这一问题的争议性质,并遵循了后来被称为“盐水理论”的说法。然而,新的全球化的土著概念正在传播、混合和扎根,尽管不均衡。至关重要的是,土著人民现在越来越多地被概念化为“殖民地人民”,而不仅仅是“第一民族”,从而使土著性与空间和时间部分脱钩。在这篇论文中,我认为与土著性相关的关系思想正在不断变化,最好从时间和空间的角度来考虑,这些概念是与谁是土著人和谁不是土著人相关的断言的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Thinking about Indigeneity with Respect to Time and Space: Reflections from Southeast Asia
Most people take it for granted that it is relatively easy to determine who is Indigenous and who is not. Indeed, in the Americas and Oceania, where a lot of settler colonialism occurred, Indigenous peoples are generally considered to be the descendants of those who inhabited these spaces prior to the arrival of white settlers. In Southeast Asia, however, there was plenty of European colonialism, but much less white settler colonization. This has made the question of “who is Indigenous” much more difficult to answer, and politically contested, as both ethnic minority and majority populations are able to credibly claim that they are “Indigenous” to where they live. Indicative of the contested nature of the issue, and following what has come to be known as the ‘salt-water theory’, most states in Southeast Asia stipulate that their populations are either all Indigenous, or that there are no Indigenous peoples within their borders. Yet new globalized conceptions of indigeneity are circulating, hybridizing and taking hold, albeit unevenly. Crucially, Indigenous peoples are now increasingly being conceptualized as “colonized peoples” rather than simply “first peoples”, thus partially uncoupling indigeneity from space and time. In this paper, I contend that relational ideas associated with indigeneity are perpetually changing and are best considered through the lens of time and space, concepts that serve as the foundation for assertions related to who is Indigenous and who is not.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
35 weeks
期刊介绍: Créée en 1983 par l’Université de Lille 1, siège de sa publication, espace populations sociétés est une revue pluridisciplinaire, internationale et thématique. Elle est ouverte et destinée aux scientifiques dont les thèmes de recherche recouvrent les trois mots-clés qui composent le titre. La différenciation démographique et la différenciation sociale des configurations, de la pratique ou du vécu de l’espace, la différenciation spatiale des populations, des sociétés ou des groupes sociaux, l’imbrication des phénomènes sociaux, démographiques et spatiaux et leurs interactions constituent des objets d’études pour des géographes.
期刊最新文献
Logiques d’implantation des structures sanitaires et disparités socio-spatiales de l’accès à l’offre de soins à Bouaké (Côte d’Ivoire) Le télétravail est-il synonyme d’exode urbain ? Les enseignements du premier confinement en France La guerre de 1914-1918 : un cataclysme démographique. Effets immédiats et conséquences à long terme de la guerre de 1914-1918 sur la démographie française Laurent Davezies. L’État a toujours soutenu ses territoires La pandémie de Covid-19, facteur de revitalisation démographique des zones rurales ? Le cas de la province d’Alicante (Espagne)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1