Über die Autorinnen und Autoren

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

UNCOMMON SCHOOLS

Stanford University Press

Contents

List of Tables...............................................................................................ixList of Figures..............................................................................................xiList of Abbreviations........................................................................................xiiiA Note on Terminology........................................................................................xvPreface and Acknowledgments..................................................................................xviiIntroduction.................................................................................................1PART I GLOBAL ANALYSIS.......................................................................................211 World Polity Transformations and the Status of Indigenous Peoples..........................................232 Indigenous Education in Global and Historical Perspective..................................................49PART II CROSS-NATIONAL ANALYSIS..............................................................................773 Indigenous–State Relations in Comparative Perspective................................................794 The Emergence of Indigenous Postsecondary Institutions.....................................................116PART III ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS.............................................................................1535 Minority-Serving Colleges in the United States.............................................................1556 Ethnocentric Curricula and the Politics of Difference......................................................179Conclusion: Summary, Challenges, and the Future of Indigenous Postsecondary Institutions.....................205Appendix.....................................................................................................219Notes........................................................................................................221References...................................................................................................229Index........................................................................................................251

Chapter One

States have sovereignty, counties have sovereignty, cities and towns have sovereignty, water districts have sovereignty, school boards have sovereignty. Why shouldn't tribes have total sovereignty? Originally they did. Vine Deloria Jr. (1969: 144)

Sovereignty is a property most often attributed to nation-states alone. The idea that indigenous peoples are sovereign not only challenges the core premise of international relations—namely, that sovereignty belongs exclusively to entities organized as nation-states—but also the notion that individuals, understood first as citizens and more recently as humans, are the sole bearers of rights. And yet, indigenous peoples advance morally and legally compelling claims to collective sovereignty, something that distinguishes them from most other racial and ethnic groups. Whereas most historically disadvantaged minorities seek inclusion, understood as the right of individuals to share in the economic rewards and political life of mainstream society, indigenous peoples demand—and increasingly command—the authority to sustain an institutionally and politically separate existence.

The most recent international statement on the rights of indigenous peoples, the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), is also the most comprehensive and far-reaching to date. Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on September 13, 2007, UNDRIP marks the first time that the world community has formally and explicitly recognized the right of indigenous peoples to collective self-determination, defined as "the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs" (Article 4). Indeed, the declaration is unique among human rights accords in its emphasis on group-based as well as individual rights (Elliott and Boli 2008).

In one respect, one might say that UNDRIP was some three decades in the making, as the earliest drafts began circulating during the late 1970s. But, in another sense, many of the core rights enshrined in the declaration can ultimately be traced to the arrival of Europeans to the New World some 500 years ago. The exceptional quasi-sovereign status of indigenous peoples under international law—including, crucially, the authority to establish and control independent postsecondary institutions that such a status entails—is rooted in their treatment as autonomous nations in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century legal discourses. Yet the path from 1492 to 2007 was anything but linear. Several centuries elapsed during which indigenous peoples were denied basic human rights, much less rights as self-determining nations. Although Europeans equivocally recognized (but rarely respected) indigenous peoples' autonomy in the decades following first contact, indigenous sovereignty underwent a centuries-long period of retrenchment before experiencing a renaissance in the post–World War II era. These historical shifts in the standing and status of indigenous peoples reflected broader changes in the world system, understood as a transnational political and cultural polity (Meyer 1980; Meyer et al. 1997a). The analysis of indigenous peoples' rights must therefore begin with the origins and evolution of this "world polity."

THE WORLD POLITY

The modern world polity emerged during the late medieval period with the consolidation, integration, and colonial expansion of the European polity. Its cultural origins, however, are traceable to antiquity.

Cultural Antecedents of the Modern World Polity

The deep historical and cultural foundations of the world polity lie in Hellenic philosophy, Roman jurisprudence, and Judeo-Christian theology. Despite the ecumenical thrust inherent to each mode of thought, all were characterized by a dialectical tension between universalism and particularism. Ancient Greeks acknowledged the universality of anthropos as a biological species but drew a rigid social distinction between themselves and barbaroi—anyone who couldn't speak Greek (Pagden 1995). Aristotle, moreover, argued that barbarianism was an immutable condition that predestined whole categories of humanity to slavery. This idea persisted well into the sixteenth century, informing debates as to whether indigenous peoples should be regarded as barbarians and therefore as "natural slaves" of the Europeans.

Romans were somewhat more inclusive than their Greek predecessors. To be sure, "provincials" continued to be distinguished from different classes of citizens, but routine procedures existed for incorporating foreigners and even slaves into the civitas. Even more expansively, the jus gentium—precursor to the modern law of nations-reigned supreme over all humanity regardless of citizenship status. Roman emperors styled themselves "lords of all the world," a title that would later be adopted by...