World War II and the development of global indigenous identities

ABSTRACT

The indigenous rights movement emerged in the last quarter of the twentieth century, establishing a newly conceptualized identity claimed not on the grounds of shared culture, language or ancestry but on shared experience as native peoples marginalized by colonial expansion. This article examines how the Second World War created conditions favouring the emergence of indigenous identity as a global concept. Using a comparative perspective, this paper considers two ways in which war conditions affected indigenous peoples: by highlighting issues of citizenship, loyalty and military service; and by altering how combatant powers evaluated indigenous cultures. While the experiences of particular groups varied widely, the wartime era focused attention on both policies of assimilation and assertions of distinctiveness, creating a fluid context for change. A global, comparative perspective offers insight into the role of the war era in understanding the relationship between indigenous activism and the international order.

KEYWORDS:

• Indigenous peoples
• World War II
• identity
• history
• assimilation
• citizenship

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to the University of Wyoming for support during a research sabbatical, to colleagues in departments of History and Anthropology for discussions, and to peer reviewers and editors for helpful comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Controversy over defining ‘indigenous peoples’ arises from the implications for claiming specific rights in national and international law. An ‘indigenous community’ is different from a minority group or ethnic group, and does not include all people who consider themselves natives of a region; see Gagné and Salaün (2012), Morgan (2011), Sissons (2005), Niezen (2003).

2. Except in direct quotations, the names of indigenous peoples are those currently used by the groups themselves.

3. On Africa in World War II, see Killingray and Plaut (2010), Jackson (2006), Killingray and Rathbone (1986), Crowder (1984). My focus on ‘indigenous peoples’ refers to self-organized communities living at the margins of the colonial state’s control. Note that the international legal category of ‘indigenous peoples’ is particularly contested in much of Africa (Hodgson 2009; Saugestad 2008).

4. While the global indigenous rights movement owes much, historically and conceptually, to activism throughout Latin America, it is more difficult to discern the war’s impact on indigenous communities there; see overviews by Humphreys (1981, 1983) and Jones (1997). Additional historical research on the war in this region is needed, as Jones complained in his review of the literature.

5. For assimilationist policies in Australia, see Haebich (2008), Rowse (2005); for New Zealand, Hill (2004); for Canada, Bohaker and Iacovetta (2009).

6. Citizenship issues affected the war experiences of all residents of colonial states, though here I focus narrowly on indigenous communities. But see, for example, Woodfork (2013) describing the significance of being a citizen or a colonial subject for Senegalese serving in the French Colonial Army.

7. War re-shaped civic identity even apart from military service. American criticism of Canadian treatment of Inuit near Arctic airbases led to improvements, including recognizing them as Canadian citizens for government benefits (Duffy 1988). Aleuts evacuated from combat and military-use areas of Alaska found that their murky status (were they under military or civilian control? wards or internees or free actors?) hampered efforts to improve their living conditions (Kohlhoff 1995).

8. Europeans saw colonial soldiers in some of the same terms. African troops were often noted for bushcraft and jungle skills; e.g. Parsons (1999, 39), where British military planners persistently mischaracterized King’s African Rifles soldiers as ‘natural’ jungle fighters. Here again, I emphasize the publicity attaching to the most marginal populations, who had seldom appeared to broader publics in ways that connected their distinctive cultures with a shared endeavour.

9. See discussions of the war’s role in promoting Native American assimilation – or not – in Bernstein (1991), Holm (1981), Franco (1999), Lackenbauer, Sheffield, and Mantle (2007), Meadows (2002). In fact, with John Collier as Commissioner of Indian Affairs, pre-war US policy had moved away from assimilationism. It was not until the post-war tribal termination movement that assimilation was officially promoted by Congress, and then it was not widely supported – and in some cases was vehemently opposed – by native communities (Riseman 2012; Philp 1999).

10. The sense of alliance was not uniform. Hall (1995) suggests that many indigenous Australians were neutral in the war, a sentiment also expressed by Micronesians who felt themselves to be endangered bystanders as Japanese and Americans fought across their islands (Poyer, Falgout, and Carucci 2001, 330–332).