Indigenous rights in southern Africa: international mechanisms and local contexts

The San are the indigenous peoples of southern Africa, numbering approximately 100,0001 and representing three linguistic families.2 Once living throughout the southern part of the continent, today the San live primarily in Botswana and Namibia, to a lesser extent in Angola and South Africa, with very small numbers also residing in Zambia and Zimbabwe. Like indigenous peoples worldwide, San communities are currently facing drastic social change, extreme marginalisation and poverty.3 Hitchcock and Garcia-Alex emphasise the starkness of indigenous peoples' deprivation, noting that ‘they tend to have the lowest health and nutritional standards, the highest rates of unemployment, illiteracy, and mortality, the shortest life spans, the lowest incomes, and the lowest degrees of political participation of the various categories of people in the countries in which they reside’.4 This description fits for the San of southern Africa, who have played an important role in the collective global imagination about human ancestry, and have been a prime focus of much anthropological research. Despite all this attention, the standards of living have continued to deteriorate. Can a rights-based approach help? Will the signing of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples have any impact? How do local, national and regional contexts come into play? What do anthropologists have to contribute to a discussion of indigenous rights in southern Africa?

The papers included in this volume were presented at the American Anthropological Association conference held in San Francisco in 2008, in a panel entitled: Southern Africa and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: How Can International Mechanisms Work in Local Communities and Contexts? This conference was held the year after the signing of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (September 2007), and there was much interest at the conference in this historic event. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (referred to in this volume also as UNDRIP, or in some places simply The Declaration) is one of the most deliberated and consultative documents in the history of the UN; it is also the only declaration which the rights-holders themselves – represented by leaders of indigenous organisations – helped to draft. The Declaration is thorough, comprehensive, and addresses the concerns of indigenous peoples and governments. Despite the time and care taken in constructing it, implementation of the UNDRIP poses many challenges stemming from political, economic, legal, social and cultural differences and barriers; the shape that these challenges take varies greatly from place to place.

To be effective, any implementation of indigenous rights must thus be based upon deep understanding of the particular situation and the issues at stake, including the specific challenges and supporting factors in a particular region, country, and locale. This is one area in which anthropologists are well-positioned to make an important contribution. Anthropological attention to human rights issues has increased dramatically in recent years, with focus on ways in which engaged anthropological research can make important theoretical and practical contributions to human rights issues.5 A theoretical approach that both draws upon the strengths, and recognises the limitations, of cultural relativism provides insight into the complexities that different cultural values and priorities can bring to negotiations of human rights issues. A methodological approach that emphasises the importance of long-term engagement in order to deeply understand on-the-ground relationships – social, economic, political – has much to offer the field of Human Rights, especially to the extent that the field aims to change these relationships in order to make them more just. This aim will face particular challenges in particular places, and an understanding of what aspects must be addressed according to local (or national, or regional) specifics, and where universal values, norms, and mechanisms can be engaged, is crucial to developing effective approaches anywhere.

The papers in this volume describe some of the specific challenges that are present in addressing human rights issues for the San in southern Africa. The authors draw on their own long-term fieldwork, and also refer to the large body of work based on previous anthropological research with San communities. These papers also situate their discussions within the regional and historical context of southern Africa, where, for example, approaches to issues having to do with ethnicity (as indigenous issues do) are still coloured by the recent memory of decades of apartheid rule. The system of forced correlation between ethnic identity, language, and territory (‘homelands’) creates profound distrust of arguments that seem to suggest segregation or separate development, as indigenous rights arguments are sometimes understood to do. Understanding how this and other historical factors are woven into the fabric of current efforts to secure land and subsistence rights, language and education rights, and other human rights, and also into the social interpretation of significant events like court cases, is crucial to the development of effective approaches to indigenous rights at local, national and regional levels.

Some general questions that will be addressed in this collection of articles include those around the interpretation of the concept of indigenous rights, at the community level, the organisational level, by governments, and in legal proceedings. For example, how do interpretations of indigenous rights intersect with, complement, or (in some cases) obscure other human rights issues, including rights to water and subsistence, the rights of the child, gender rights or language rights? Do these interpretations match those of legal experts – and where they don't, how can these interpretations be reconciled in a way that will lead to greater respect for indigenous rights? Furthermore, in what specific ways are general human rights not being met, and does an approach emphasising indigenous rights help to determine what special applications are necessary to ensure that they are? Many of these questions can only be productively answered through a close and careful analysis of local situations, and how they link with broader structures. As anthropologists and activists, an underlying concern of these authors is the ways in which research in their field can contribute to this kind of deeper understanding.

The situations described in these articles are also relevant to more global concerns. How can a nuanced grasp of local complexities contribute to an understanding of the impact and usefulness of the UNDRIP? As is outlined by Crawhall in this volume, Africa played an important role in the drafting, and passing of the UNDRIP – in what context did this occur? How did national agendas intersect to influence politics around the signing? What is the relevance of southern Africa to broader Human Rights, and indigenous rights, discourse? Africa as a continent provides an important ‘case’. On the one hand, some of the key values enshrined in the UNDRIP – such as collective rights – are also upheld by the African Charter on Human and People's Rights (ACHPR) to a degree that is not matched by other regional human rights charters. Africa would seem thus well-positioned to support a declaration of indigenous rights as peoples' rights. However, the definition of who is indigenous in Africa is contested, and politicians often argue that all Africans are indigenous and thus there is no need to grant special rights to any one segment of the population.6 Crawhall's convincing argument in this volume for the deep-rootedness of the concept of aboriginality in Africa provides an important contradiction to this popular belief, suggesting that there is room for a productive understanding of indigenous rights in Africa. This understanding must be cultivated, however, with particular attention to regional dynamics. Identifying specific groups of people as indigenous and deserving of ‘special attention’ is particularly problematic in southern Africa, where the history of apartheid has made governments and citizens alike wary of any approach that may be used to isolate, disadvantage or essentialise specific groups of people. These dynamics, and their effect upon interpretation and implementation of the UNDRIP in southern Africa, are addressed by the authors in this volume as they relate to the particular issues examined in their articles.

Indigeneity and indigenous rights in southern Africa

The debate over indigeneity in southern Africa has played a leading role in debate over the concept in general, from within anthropology and related disciplines. This categorical debate is central to a discussion about the appropriateness of defining rights as they apply specifically to indigenous peoples.7 The sections below position the papers in this volume within this debate, especially as it relates to southern Africa. Individual authors clarify their own approach within the articles in this volume, but the general approach of this volume regarding the relevance of the concepts of indigenous peoples and indigenous rights is outlined here. This positioning is necessary in the face of resistance – sometimes vehement rejection – of these categories.

Indigenous peoples

Resistance to the category of ‘indigenous’ has taken several forms. Some anthropologists have argued that the term is merely a substitute for earlier pejorative adjectives like ‘primitive’; that it rests on romantic, idealised notions of cultural purity, and as such it is not an appropriate anthropological category.8 Another argument has been that the term has the potential to be misappropriated or otherwise misused,9 and that, especially in Africa, using the category to substantiate claims of mistreatment or to demand rights of certain peoples has the potential to create backlash from governments who are hostile to the term, or to its application to a limited group of people.10 Likewise, the category of ‘indigenous rights’ is sometimes understood to be about special rights, or the granting of special privileges to a (possibly dubious) category of people. And, as Saugestad points out, the concept of indigenous peoples is ‘perceived by bureaucrats all over the world as a concept that is inconvenient, diffuse and difficult to handle’.11

These concerns have been argued at length by anthropologists and others, and have been an important part of a dialogue that has shaped an understanding of ‘indigenous peoples’ and their rights that is more balanced, useful and cognizant of both historical factors and contemporary realities. A strong and persuasive case has been made for an understanding of ‘indigenous’ as a relational and processual category12 as opposed to a ‘“static” and “essentialising” understanding’.13 Such an approach focuses on the ‘interface’ between groups – their relations and the processes of self-identification and articulation that are being navigated – rather than on the cultural content. Thus we focus on the relations between indigenous peoples and the encompassing nation-state – as well as other minority and majority groups within the state and, increasingly, with transnational corporations. Kenrick makes an important point about the processual nature of the category, referencing both the historical processes of dispossession that indigenous peoples have experienced, and current human rights processes:

In a world moving towards justice, the term [indigenous] would be understood as drawing our attention to similar processes of systematic appropriation that have sought legitimacy by first essentializing and then denying difference.14

Saugestad links this relational, processual understanding of indigeneity to the specific problems that indigenous communities face – and how to best approach them.15 Speaking specifically about the San in Botswana, she notes that addressing the root causes of their problems implies a challenge to the dominant society. This is true at some level for all of the situations described in this collection of papers, and implies, in turn, that changing the situation requires challenging either more powerful groups and/or the status quo. Such an endeavour requires careful strategising and a sophisticated understanding of the relationships between San and other groups, as well as the processes in which these relationships are embedded and evolving. The papers in this volume strive to contribute to such an understanding and to the development of appropriate strategies.

Indigenous rights

Werner Zips also highlights the processual nature of the category indigenous, noting that as it is used in legal documents today, it is not a romanticised abstraction; to the contrary, it has developed out of a careful process that has gone on for more than four decades. The category in international law, he notes, is the result of a ‘long and differentiated process of deliberations and negotiations that has involved, and been substantially driven by, indigenous peoples themselves’.16 Furthermore, he notes that:

…indigenous rights discourses are not about primitiveness, cultural purity or exclusive ancestral roots, but about unfolding in practice such notions as equality, procedural justice and a universal right of self-determination that the idea of human rights has always promised.17

Zips and others make it clear that indigenous rights is not – as is often misunderstood – a claim to ‘special rights’ but a critical stage in achieving basic human rights for a population who have been systematically excluded from such processes. He defends the category of indigenous in this struggle, noting that the ‘common denominator of indigeneity’ made it possible for groups who had been ‘deprived of their right of self determination by more powerful usurpers to concentrate their energies on the age-long struggle for equal rights’.18

Alan Barnard points out that ‘land rights and rights to utilize the resources passed down from the ancestors are human rights’.19 Although he suggests that we do not need a special category of indigenous rights, others have argued for the necessity of this legal category (among others) because the holders of these rights have been unable to access basic human rights. James Anaya, the prominent indigenous rights scholar, describes it thus:

…even though [assimilative policies] have been abandoned or reversed, indigenous cultures remain threatened as a result of the lingering effects of those historical policies and because, typically, indigenous communities hold a non-dominant position in the larger societies in which they live.20

The term indigenous thus signals shared historical experiences – ones that continue to impact modern realities, and it can, as Kenrick puts it, ‘usefully highlight the commonality of ongoing hidden histories’.21 In large part, this historical dimension has to do with land rights – and the specific way that these take shape. As Crawhall describes, most peoples claiming to be ‘indigenous’ in Africa, are making claims relative to in-migrating agricultural peoples. Their current crisis, however, is becoming one not only of exclusion from agriculturally-based political systems, but also contains new threats posed by industrial economic activities, including mining and new forms of agriculture. Saugestad also emphasises exclusion from land as central to understanding modern indigenous peoples' plight. She points out that ‘it is not simply the historical fact of annexation or conquest that is significant. Equally significant is the sense of continuity…this may be expressed in the continued use of land, but also in a clear sense of having been deprived of previous access and use’.22 In this volume, Saugestad23 and Hitchcock, Sapignoli and Babchuk24 explore the specific dynamics of the loss of access to land, and the struggle to re-gain it, and the role of international legal mechanisms and transnational actors in this process.

Self-determination

Ultimately, what all of these papers are concerned with is the right of individuals and groups to self-determination. James Anaya describes self determination as ‘a principle of the highest order within the contemporary international system’ and argues that that no discussion of indigenous peoples' rights under international law is complete without addressing this subject. Furthermore, he points out that ‘indigenous peoples have repeatedly articulated their demands in terms of self-determination, and in turn, self-determination precepts have fuelled the international movement in favour of those demands’.25 Likewise, as discussed by Crawhall, it is this very principle that has made states wary of supporting indigenous rights for fear of compromising territorial integrity. Crawhall dismisses this fear as a misunderstanding of the principle of self-determination.26 Anaya likewise notes that:

Any conception of self-determination that does not take into account the multiple patterns of human association and interdependency is at best incomplete and more likely distorted…in a world of increasingly overlapping and integrated political spheres, self-determination concerns the constitution and functioning of all levels and forms of government under which people live…these include not just the aggregate populations of states and colonial territories but other spheres of community that define human existence and place in the world, including indigenous peoples as well as other groups.27

He identifies five categories of self-determination: non-discrimination, cultural integrity, lands and resources, social welfare and development, and self government. The articles in this collection delve into these categories, and combinations of them. For example, both Hopson28 and Hays29 address the ways that language rights and education rights – though not always on the list of immediate concerns – in fact intersect with all categories of indigenous rights and are central to achieving self-determination. Sylvain, on the other hand, argues that San women experience intersectional discrimination, based on class, race, and gender. She examines how an emphasis on collective rights, for example, can reduce San women's ability to address gender-based violence and discrimination. It is hoped that these close examinations and case studies of the ways that that indigenous issues interlock and take shape in southern Africa will contribute to discussions towards more effective ways to ensure that the San of southern Africa are able to access their human rights – as individuals and as groups.

Articles in this collection

In this collection Nigel Crawhall (Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee, IPACC) reviews the formal decisions and instruments supporting indigenous rights (including the ACHPR report, the UN Human Rights Council decision, the Africa Group Aide Memoire), tells the story of the lobbying and reaction of African states and the politics surrounding the development of the UNDRIP at the UN. He connects this movement to an overall picture of capacity of the various indigenous movements in Africa, (San, Pygmies, Saharans, East Africans) to engage with the state and draw attention to their most pressing issues. Africa was the last of the global regions to organise itself around the theme of indigenous peoples' rights and Crawhall describes the tremendous challenges this movement faced. He focuses on the tension between African state anxieties about sovereignty, as opposed to the international legal rights to self-determination. He also makes a strong argument for transnational approaches, arguing that the continent-wide network that was able to coordinate effective lobbying at various levels has been crucial to the indigenous rights network in Africa.

Sidsel Saugestad (University of Tromsø) presents a particular case in which transnational efforts played an important role. She describes the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR) court case in Botswana, and analyses the events leading up to, during, and following the court case. Saugestad's analysis explores in detail the impact of international mechanisms exemplified in the CKGR case through a textual analysis of the court decision, giving some specifics of each judge's opinions and commenting on the wider significance of their different takes on the issue. This article also highlights how an international coalition in support of the CKGR residents became effectively inoperative when one international non-governmental organisation (NGO) both took over support for the court case, and at the same time conducted an international campaign against the Botswana government. Her astute analysis of the transnational and national dynamics underscores the potential for unintended consequences of well-meaning campaigns. She argues that, while international approaches and support are very much needed, international actors must also pay careful attention to the ripple effects that their approaches can have for people ‘on the ground’.

Robert Hitchcock (University of Michigan), Maria Sapignoli (University of Essex) and Wayne Babchuk (University of Nebraska) describe the specific rights violations that have taken place during the Botswana government's relocation of San communities residing in the CKGR. They contextualise the case regionally, describing struggles of San in other parts of southern Africa to claim land and resource rights, and historically, highlighting the role of the CKGR in the formation of approaches towards the San since Independence. They describe the local articulations of the case as being primarily about rights in general, not specifically about indigenous rights. However, by providing a close documentation of exactly how the rights violations take shape – denial of access to water, for example, or right to subsistence – it becomes clear that these are special cases, in which the provision of basic human rights depends upon respecting the context in which they can be fulfilled.

The CKGR case is compelling; it can have important impact and provides rich ground for analysis of the multi-layered aspects of indigenous rights. However, Saugestad also reminds us that this case, in the end, affects a small percentage of San in Botswana – the vast majority of whom are struggling to adapt to the necessities of participation in national society. Attention is also needed to the multiple ways in which other, less dramatically exposed, San communities and individuals are daily marginalised and deprived of access to rights.

Renee Sylvain (University of Guelph) gets at some of these ‘less dramatically exposed’ issues in her description of the ways in which indigenous women experience discrimination. She argues that San women are subject to unique intersections of harm and severe discrimination stemming from racial, gender, ethnic and class inequalities and stereotypes, and that these cannot all be adequately addressed by the notion of indigenous rights. In fact, she argues they can be thwarted by interpretations of ‘collective rights’. She notes, for example, that ‘While collective rights can serve to promote and protect culture, women's rights are often designed to protect women from the claims of culture.’ She also argues that, despite the relatively high levels of gender equality that the San are understood to have enjoyed (and in some places, enjoy) while living as foragers, in regions where San are predominantly settled and working as farm labourers, they have internalized the patriarchal discourse and behaviour of neighbouring – and dominant – groups. The result is a ‘claim of culture’ that is not only recent, but also undermines women's rights. Sylvain provides poignant evidence from recent fieldwork, and suggests ways for women's interests to be included in their communities' collective concerns.

Rodney Hopson (Duquesne University) foregrounds the often neglected human rights issues of language and linguistic rights, describing the great complexity of these issues in contemporary southern Africa. He outlines international statements and meetings that may have bearing on efforts to promote these rights, specifically in educational context. In particular, he draws attention to the ambiguity of language rights in educational reform in Namibia. Though often seen as a favourable case study for minority language and education rights, Hopson argues that despite the potential available in the language policy, actual implementation of it leaves gaping holes for marginalised minorities – in particular, the San.

Jennifer Hays (University of Tromsø) describes the role that education plays in the wider picture of indigenous rights. In both Botswana and Namibia, San communities have the lowest educational attainment rates of any other group, and Hays describes how educational issues take shape for San in both countries. Both countries are signatories of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which includes several references to education; these are compared to other indigenous rights and human rights mechanisms. She argues that these documents address both the right to access mainstream educational institutions that respect and accommodate the languages and cultures of indigenous children, and the right to ‘establish and control their own educational systems and institutions, providing education in their own languages in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning’.30 Currently, neither of these options is available for San communities. What could an indigenous rights perspective contribute to efforts to improve educational options for San? Hays compares rights-based approaches with the human capital and the capabilities approaches. She argues that in the southern African context, the educational situation of the San can be approached strategically by drawing on elements of all three of these approaches. Indigenous rights, understood as a special application of human rights (as opposed to special rights), in fact also combines elements of all three and can provide a comprehensive and flexible guiding approach to the educational issues confronting San communities.

Rodolfo Stavenhagen, the former UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Rights, suggests in his conclusion to the volume ‘Making the Declaration Work: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, that ‘attention must now be paid mainly to the various forms and problems of the exercise of internal self-determination’31 in order to determine the most effective approach to take. Hitchock and Garcia-Alix argue that the crucial issue now is to ‘find ways to compel states to comply with the international human rights standards outlined in the Declaration and to ensure the long-term survival and well-being of indigenous peoples throughout the world’.32 They suggest many ways that this can be done, including ‘enhancing the capacities of states, indigenous peoples, and community-based organisations to plan and implement sustainable development and conservation strategies, engaging in human rights education, promoting constitutional reform at the national level, forming networks, and undertaking collaborative activities at the international, national, or local levels’.33 These recommendations call for careful research and analysis of local specificities. The papers in this collection are a contribution in this direction.

Note on terminology and orthography

There is no perfect term with which to refer to indigenous peoples in southern Africa as a group. Most of these papers use the term San, which has been accepted by the Working Group of Indigenous Minorities in Southern Africa (WIMSA) as the preferred over-arching term for the hunting and gathering groups indigenous to southern Africa and their descendants today. This term is used by many academics and is increasingly used by San activists at various levels. The term Bushmen is recognised and widely used in South Africa and Namibia. In Botswana, the term Basarwa is commonly used to refer to these same peoples. None of these three terms is really better or worse than the others; all have derogatory origins, yet all have been reclaimed to a certain extent by those to whom they refer.

The terms Khoe or Khoi are both used to refer to the descendants of semi-nomadic pastoralists (formerly referred to as the Khoikhoi), who are also considered indigenous to southern Africa. Khoe groups are in general much more assimilated than San groups, in large part because of the process of forced assimilation during the apartheid era, when members of Khoe language and cultural groups were identified with the ‘coloured’ category. Today, especially in South Africa, they also face discrimination and are struggling for recognition of their identity. The authors of the papers in this volume focus primarily on Botswana and Namibia, and in these countries it is the San who face the greatest social, political and economic problems, and who are the focus of these articles. The term Khoisan was coined as a linguistic classification of interrelated click languages, and is still often used when discussing language issues. However, for discussing social groups, the preference of southern African organisations is to separate the terms into Khoe and San,34 or the variation KhoeSan, which acknowledges both the unity and distinctness of the two groups.

Where authors of these papers are talking about a specific language/cultural group, the terms used are those that people use for themselves. Many of these contain click sounds. There are two basic orthographic systems used today by San groups to represent these groups. All San names and words used in these papers are spelled according to the particular orthography currently accepted for that language. Most groups use the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) system, and the Nguni alphabet is used primarily by the Naro (see Table 1).

Table 1. Nguni and IPA symbols for click sounds.

Nguni	IPA	Description of click sound
C	|	Dental click; tongue against front teeth
Tc	‡	Alveolar-palatal click; tongue against alveolar ridge
Q	!	Palatal click; tongue against upper palate
X	‖	Lateral click; produced at the sides of the tongue

Notes

According to the Working Group of Indigenous Minorities in Southern Africa (WIMSA), Botswana has about 46,000 San, and Namibia 38,000; there are also 7000 in Angola and 6000 in South Africa, with small communities of a few hundred in Zambia and Zimbabwe http://www.wimsanet.org (accessed 21 November 2010).

The families all fall under one cluster, Khoe-San. See Tom Güldemann and Rainer Vossen, ‘Khoisan’, in African Languages: An Introduction, ed. Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 99–122.

For a comprehensive description of the problems facing the indigenous populations of southern Africa today, see the edited volume by Robert Hitchcock and Diana Vinding, Indigenous Peoples Rights in Southern Africa (Copenhagen: IWGIA, 2004); Alan Barnard, Hunters and Herders of Southern Africa: A Comparative Ethnography of the Khoisan Peoples (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) provides a thorough overview of the San cultural groupings.

Robert K. Hitchcock and Lola Garcia-Alix. ‘Report from the Field: The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Implementation and Implications’, Genocide Studies and Prevention 4, no. 1 (2009): 99–109. They cite also: Julian Burger, Report from the Frontier: The State of the World's Indigenous Peoples (London: Zed Press, 1987); Julian Burger, The Gaia Atlas of First Peoples: A Future for the Indigenous World (New York and London: Anchor Books, 1990); David Maybury-Lewis, Indigenous Peoples, Ethnic Groups, and the State (Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1997); John Bodley, Victims of Progress (Mountain View: Mayfield Publishing, 1999); Patrick Thornberry, Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002).

See, for example, Mark Goodale, ed. Human Rights: An Anthropological Reader (West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009); American Anthropologist special issue: ‘Anthropology and Human Rights in a New Key’ 108, no.1 (2006). Authors in both of these collections (and others) have explored the contributions that an anthropological engagement with human rights issues can make, both to theoretical understanding and practical implementation efforts.

Nigel Crawhall, ‘Africa and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, The International Journal of Human Rights 15, no. 1 (2011): this issue.

Adam Kuper, ‘The Return of the Native’, Current Anthropology 44 (2003): 389–402; Stephen Corry and James Suzman's debate in Before Farming 14 (2002/2003): 1–10; Justin Kenrick and Jerome Lewis, ‘Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and the Politics of the Term ‘Indigenous’, Anthropology Today 20 (2004): 4–9.

Kuper, ‘Return of the Native’; Alan Barnard, ‘Kalahari Revisionism, Vienna and the ‘Indigenous Peoples’ Debate', Social Anthropology 14, no. 1 (2008): 1–16.

Andre Bétéille, ‘The Idea of Indigenous People’, Current Anthropology 39 (1998): 187–91; Kuper, ‘Return of the Native’.

James Suzman, ‘Indigenous Wrongs and Human Rights: National Policy, International Resolutions and the Status of the San of Southern Africa’, in Africa's Indigenous Peoples. ‘First Peoples or Marginalized Minorities?’, ed. Alan Barnard and Justin Kenrick (Edinburgh: Centre for African Studies, University of Edinburgh, 2001), 273–97; James Suzman, ‘Response from James Suzman to Stephen Corry’, Before Farming 14 (2002/2003): 4–10.

Sidsel Saugestad, ‘Contested Images. “First Peoples” or “Marginalized Minorities” in Africa?’, in Africa's Indigenous Peoples. ‘First Peoples or Marginalized Minorities?’, ed. Barnard and Kenrick (Edinburgh: Centre for African Studies, University of Edinburgh, 2001), 299–322 .

Saugestad, ‘Contested Images’; Kenrick and Lewis, ‘Indigenous Peoples’ Rights'.

Sidsel Saugestad, ‘Beyond the “Columbus Context”: New Challenges as the Indigenous Discourse is Applied to Africa’, in Indigenous Peoples: Self-determination, Knowledge, Identity, ed. Henry Minde (2008), 157–73, 170.

Justin Kenrick, ‘The Concept of Indigeneity’, Social Anthropology 14, no. 1 (2006): 20 (emphasis added).

Saugestad, ‘Contested Images’.

Werner Zips, ‘Discussion: The Concept of Indigeneity’, Social Anthropology 14, no. 1 (2006): 27–9, 27.

Ibid., 28; emphasis in original.

Ibid., 27, emphasis added.

Barnard, ‘Kalahari Revisionism’, 10, emphasis in original.

James Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Kenrick, ‘The Concept of Indigeneity’, 19.

Saugestad, ‘Contested Images’, 307.

Sidsel Saugestad, ‘Impact of International Mechanisms on Indigenous Rights in Botswana’, The International Journal of Human Rights 15, no. 1 (2011): this issue.

Robert K. Hitchcock, Maria Sapignoli and Wayne A. Babchuk, ‘What About Our Rights? Settlements, Subsilence and Livelihood Security among Central Kalahari San and Bakgalagadi’, The International Journal of Human Rights, 15, no. 1 (2011): this issue.

Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law, 97.

Crawhall, ‘African and the UNDRIP’.

Ibid., 103; see also Hitchcock and Garcia-Alix, ‘Report from the Field’.

Rodney Hopson, ‘Language Rights and the San in Namibia: A Fragile and Ambiguous but Necessary Proposition’, The International Journal of Human Rights, 15, no. 1 (2011): this issue.

Jennifer Hays, ‘Educational Rights for Indigenous Communities in Botswana and Namibia’, The International Journal of Human Rights 15, no. 1 (2011): this issue.

UNDRIP, Article 14.

Rodolfo Stavenhagen, ‘Making the Declaration Work’, in Making the Declaration Work: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ed. Claire Charters and Roldolfo Stavenhagen (IWGIA: Copenhagen, 2009), 365.

Hitchcock and Garcia-Alix, ‘Report from the Field’, 106.

Ibid.

Working Group of Indigenous Minorities in Southern Africa (WIMSA), Second WIMSA International Conference on San Languages in Education, Penduka Training Centre, Katutura, Namibia, 31 August–2 September 2004.