Indigenous Education in Brazil: The Issue of Contacted and Noncontacted Native Indians

Abstract

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to education” and “elementary education shall be compulsory.” In this article, I first discuss the current situation of Native Indian education in Brazil; this is to say, the education of the so-called contacted groups. I shall make clear that the educational provision for these groups faces many challenges, including that of deciding what kind of fundamental paradigm should underpin it. Second, I turn my attention to the case of noncontacted groups and ask the question: Does the basic human right of education as stated by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and mirrored by the Brazilian Constitution, apply to these groups? If we answer yes to this question, then could we say that the Brazilian state, and other states, are failing these groups? If we answer in the negative, then a sound argument for the fundamental human right to education not applying to them must be provided.

Notes

¹ The adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the UN in 2007 marked a substantial victory for Indigenous groups and international law, representing the culmination of a 40-year process. It is arguable that another important event in this process was the adoption by the UN in 1992 of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities. Historically speaking, international law supported the colonization of Indigenous people (e.g., European colonialism from the 16th to the 20th century), serving also as an instrument of pacification, domestication, and assimilation by national states (e.g., “White Australia policy” and similar policies in the United States, Canada, and Brazil). Thus, “if the [2007] Declaration helps to legitimize indigenous demands, it is equally true that the Declaration helps to re-legitimize international law itself in a post colonial era” (Anaya, 1996; Anghie, 2004; Keal, 2003; Kymlicka, n.d., p. 1; Xanthaki, 2007, pp. 6, 285). Despite this recent progress, and as it shall be discussed during the unfolding of this article, there remain a number of issues concerning the right of Indigenous peoples to education.

² NB. This situation is complex and varies according to the ethnic group. For instance, in the case of the Ticuna, teachers from this ethnic group appear to dominate and have a good command of the Ticuna language; however, Medeiros (2012, p. 6) notes the case of a Kaingang school in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, South of Brazil, in which 8 out of 13 teachers belong to the Kaingang ethnic group, but only 4 of those 8 actually speak the language. Thus, when communities have reached a high degree of assimilation, they face a major challenge when trying to use the local language as the medium for teaching and learning.

³ NB. Contacted Indian communities are aware of this, especially when they reflect back upon their experiences prior to the 1980s when integrationist policies were in full force and missionary schools were the norm. For instance, a local individual from the Alto Rio Negro area in the Amazon region of Brazil commented that: “They took away half of our culture, but at the same time they taught us how to defend the other half against the Whites” (Brandhuber, 1999; Grüneberg, 1994, p. 172; cited and translated by Brandhuber, 1999).

⁴ Sertanista is a word used in Brazil to describe those who “work” with Native Indians.

⁵ NB. José Antônio Lutzenberger, a famous Brazilian environmentalist, also makes the same point when he says: “We have no right to impose our way of life on Indian populations, to insist on their ‘integration.’ The only protection Native Indian peoples need is respect to their rights as human beings, as an autonomous culture, and as a nation. We must provide them with shelter from the aggressions and greed of the ‘civilised man,’ who wants to take away their lands. These peoples have nothing, absolutely nothing, to gain with our ‘progress’; rather, only disaster awaits them. When we impose our ‘civilization’ upon them, we cause their physical and cultural demise. . . . We are still in the position to offer these peoples their physical and cultural survival. However, if we continue as we have done, this will be an impossibility in a few years’ time. We must act now. If we destroy these peoples, we will enter into history as barbarians who knew what they were doing. In contrast to what happened in the past, we cannot pretend that we do not know what we are doing. We have absolutely no right to destroy the Native Indian!” (cited in Coe, Hüttner, & Ramos, 2010, pp. 48–49 [translation by the author])

⁶ For an interesting discussion on new developments in Indigenous education in Brazil, see Guilherme (2013); Cabalzar (2012); Hüttner (2009).

⁷ In general, the members of these communities possess no antibodies against common diseases such as measles and chicken pox, and therefore an epidemic can have devastating effects in the community.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Alexandre Guilherme

Dr Alex Guilherme is a lecturer in Philosophy of Education, specialising in peace education and indigenous education. He works at the Faculty of Education, Liverpool Hope University, and is currently a Visiting Scholar at the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge. His book Martin Buber and Dialogue: Education as Conflict Resolution has been nominated to the American Jewish National Book Award in 2015. He has delivered papers from the book at the Yad Vashem in 2013 and to the UNESCO weekly seminar in Paris in 2014.