Modernity, development and development aggression

There is a general consensus in literature that pervasive poverty among Indigenous peoples has its roots in the history of colonisation and in the continuing systemic discrimination and non-recognition of Indigenous people’s individual and collective rights pursued by the modern state (Barras 2004; Carino 2005; Carino 2009; Doyle 2009; Haslam, Schafer and Beaudet 2009; Lauderdale 2009; Tauli-Corpuz 2010; Kasi 2011; Northcott 2012). In spite of the fact that more than four development decades have already come and gone since the 1960s, the impoverished and marginalized situations of most Indigenous peoples still remains.

Carino (2005) argues that even in countries where significant levels of economic growth rates were achieved, the situation of Indigenous communities has not improved. This shows that the development decades did not benefit Indigenous communities. There is general convergence of opinion among scholars that the dominant development paradigm of modernisation and industrialisation caused the destruction of their Indigenous economic, social and cultural systems which resulted in the further marginalisation of Indigenous peoples (Carino 2005;

Lauderdale 2009; Tauli- Corpuz 2010; Northcott 2012; Tegegn 2014)

Tauli-Corpuz (2010) further describes the present phase of globalisation which is underpinned by neo-liberal economics and liberal political theory as further increasing the risks,

vulnerabilities and impoverishment of Indigenous peoples. There have been several attempts to bring Indigenous people into mainstream economies but this has resulted in the further impoverishment of Indigenous people. There have been several attempts to bring Indigenous people into mainstream economies but this has resulted in the further impoverishment of Indigenous people.

The fourth session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2005) asserts that to many Indigenous communities, mainstream development is regarded as one of the root causes of their problems. Another study by Getty (2010) notes that Western attempts to assimilate Indigenous peoples have not resulted in a better quality of life for Indigenous peoples, but rather in what has been called by some Aboriginal scholars a ‘soul wound’. The same sentiments were echoed in Doyle’s (2009) study which found that Indigenous people were of the perception that the state institutions through their systematic exclusion of Indigenous peoples are responsible for imposing poverty on them. The threats of development activities imposed on Indigenous communities gave rise to a new term in development literature called

‘development aggression’. Development aggression refers to the negative effects resulting from the imposition of development projects and policies without the free prior and informed consent of those Indigenous peoples affected by such projects and policies with the main aim of modernising and developing such areas or the nation at large (Corina 2009; Bamba 2010;

Doyle and Gilbert 2010, Tauli-Corpuz; 2010).

The term development aggression was coined by Indigenous communities to refer to development projects that violate their human rights. Doyle and Gilbert (2010) argue that for Indigenous people globally; the term development is often equated to the dispossession of their lands and resources, increased deprivation and destruction and loss of traditional livelihoods. They further argue that for Indigenous peoples, development has come to be equated with aggression for three main reasons. The first one is the fact that philosophies and perspectives associated with the concept and implementation of development have ignored Indigenous people’s views and visions. The underlying challenge is that under the dominant model of economic globalisation, development has become synonymous with catching up with the most industrialized ‘developed’ countries. The most industrialised Western countries in their bid to universalise development and industrialisation have been arrogant and extremely detrimental, ultimately fatal, to Indigenous people’s own forms of traditional economy and practices and indeed to their very existence. Hence traditional economies and ways of life, such as nomadic hunter-gathering or subsistence farming, are regarded as

outdated and primitive forms of survival and they are obstacles to development. Secondly, development processes and policies are often imposed on Indigenous people’s ancestral lands without meaningful consultation and without their informed consent.

Doyle and Gilbert (2010) argue that from the perspectives of Indigenous peoples, the noble objectives of development as a means of poverty reduction and improved wellbeing have been hijacked by individuals, corporate entities and states that have vested interests in exploiting resources in their territories. Indigenous peoples throughout the world are disproportionately impacted by large scale development projects. The pervasiveness and profoundness of impacts that result from these large scale development projects impact heavily on Indigenous peoples and thereby threatening their culture and even existence. Doyle and Gilbert’s (2010) sentiments are also shared by Barras (2004) who describes civilization which can be equated to development to mean the dispossession of lands; the demise of culture and the attempt to make white people out of Indigenous people. The same sentiments were shared by Bamba (2010) writing on behalf of Indigenous peoples when he notes that ‘as Indigenous peoples, we have been experiencing, witnessing and becoming victims of this so-called ‘devil’s gift’ out from this developmentalism’. Bamba (2010) further argues that in the name of ‘development’, Indigenous people’s lands have been taken over, their homes have been destroyed, and their Mother Earth has been raped and ripped. Bamba (2010) laments that in many places in the past, Indigenous people, including helpless women and children were even killed or tortured, kidnapped and brainwashed. The above contributions show that development and development aggression are two sides of the same coin depending from which side you are viewing it from. From the mainstream perspective, development projects’ main aim is to improve the standards of living but to the Indigenous people it means further exasperation through the destruction of livelihoods. In the ultimate, more often than not development activities have resulted in the further impoverishment of Indigenous communities and peoples.

Various scholars acknowledge that more than four decades after the development era, the majority of Indigenous peoples are more impoverished and marginalized than before (Tauli-Corpuz 2010; Tegegn 2014). The continued marginalisation and impoverishment of Indigenous peoples and communities was mainly caused by their forced detachment from their ancestral lands which are their source of livelihood. The implementation of development projects has robbed Indigenous peoples of their lands and natural resources. For Indigenous communities; the land and the environment support and sustain life as the base of fishing,

pastoralism, hunting and gathering. Tegegn (2014:52) argues that ‘there is nothing more sacrilegious to Indigenous communities than threats to their land and environment’. Despite the importance of land and environment to Indigenous communities, Tegegn’s (2014) study found that many governments in Africa still resort to evicting Indigenous communities from their land for commercial purposes and the tragedy is that Indigenous communities are not even paid compensation or provided with alternative land. This is also supported by Borrows (2001) who notes that states are increasingly modifying, infringing and extinguishing Indigenous people’s rights. When provided with alternative land, Indigenous people and communities are usually resettled in infertile and barren places which are unproductive and hence unable to sustain them as previously done by their ancestral lands. This further marginalises Indigenous peoples.

2.6 Causes of the Impoverishment of Indigenous communities