Indigenous Peoples and Racism in Europe

Report to The Word Church Council
by Lars Johnsen, Karasjok
---

The European report - Indigenous Peoples

There are several Indigenous Peoples in Europe: Inuit in Greenland, Sámi in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia and Nentsy in Russia.

If we also include the Asian area of Northern Russia we would have mentioned 26 different Peoples (including Khants, Mansi, Sel'kups, Nganasan).

Other Peoples in Russia - like for example Komi, Maries, Udmurt, Vepsians, Karelians and Mordvin - are national minorities which have many similarities with the above mentioned Indigenous Peoples, but they have in their time moved over to the agricultural technology of Indo-Europeans.

The situations for these Indigenous Peoples differ. The majority populations in the different nation states have not related to these peoples in a uniformed way. Therefore the situation for these peoples is that they have been objects of different types of influences: dependent on geography as on historical shifts in the nation state's domestic and international politics.

Common to all the different groups, historically speaking, is that they themselves have not had chance to control their own development with regards to language, culture, natural resources and way of life. The different groups have had to adapt to changing times and shifts in power.

The following slogans can be used in a simplified attempt to describe a very extensive issue: colonisation, forced assimilation, forced Christianisation, etc.

Development in recent years has been, for its part, positive for many these groups Ð we could mention Inuits in Greenland and Sámi in Norway, Sweden and Finland who have now various levels of self determination. In these areas "home rule" or "Sámi Parliament" which is to be the official mouthpiece in relation to the nation states legislative, budgetary and executive authorities.

But these organs' authority and power is restricted. They function only as advisory organisations with the exception of the administration of an area of earmarked resources.

Despite official acknowledgement in recent years of some of the above named groups, questions can be posed concerning the development of daily interaction between ordinary people. Others are worried; there is a huge danger that it could have the opposite effect. Already fewer and fewer people follow the traditions of their parents and grandparents in everyday life.

The constant and strong cultural pressure from wider society Ð that is to say from the majority culture in each of the nation states and from the larger powers in Europe and the USA Ð make it difficult for Indigenous Peoples to live as culture carriers on a day to day basis.

The difficulties which are highlighted here could, in short, be called 3the daily identity battle2. And this is a battle which the peoples Ð if dependent to some extent on geography, profession and age, Ð have to deal with on a daily basis.

One of the consequences of this is that others choose not to take on the battle, but prefer to live exactly as the wider society would have them do so. This does not benefit the individual in the long run; numerous examples can be found to illustrate that after some time they begin to feel like a chameleon, a hypocrite, false and worthless.

This has been researched Ð in a round about sort of way Ð and points to deeper problems; psycho-social problems. The frequency of drug problems, emotional stress, and suicide is higher amongst Indigenous Peoples than in the average populations and the cause could be found here.

The result of this permanent and centuries long oppression, which to some extent still continues, is not always easy for an outsider to experience.

Maybe it is here that the core of some of the real problems can be found:

• first of all, the problems which an ethnic group have can be difficult to communicate to the wider society as the problems are not always easy to isolate.
• secondly, the problems can be so deeply inside a person«s identity that they are not so easy for others in the group to experience or share.

Looked at in one way, there have been three important symbolic acts in Norway during the past year:

1. Firstly, the Norwegian king, King Harald, came with an official apology over how the Sámi have been treated in Norway. This happened during the opening of the Norwegian Sámi Parliament last autumn.
2. Secondly, the highest organ of the Norwegian Church, the so-called Church of Norway General Synod, passed the following motion in November 1997: The Church of Norway General Synod acknowlege the authoritity's Norwegianisation policy and The Norwegian Church's roll in this connection has brought about an infringement on the Sámi people. The Church of Norway General Synod will contribute to that the injustice does not continue. The Church of Norway General Synod recommends that the next step be a reconciliatory church service.
3. Thirdly, the district governor of the northern most district in Norway, Finnmark, has also come forward, on one occasion last winter with a public apology over the authority's policies towards the Sámi people.

"From my own experiences in meetings with the church I have gradually become clear over the church«s big problems with putting the reconciliation process into practice: One does not see at ones own house must be tidied. Before one can begin to think about reconciliation with us who were on the receiving end of the injustice. Reconciliation means that the victim will have the chance to deal with the pain at the same time as the pain is acknowledged and understood by those who dealt it out. The pain must be given a value so that the victim can find faith in his/her own identity. This pain could show itself in rage, hate, fear or tears. The church's first message should be that God sees and recognises the rage, the grief and the hate as legitimate, human reactions. But many who are in the victims position feel that the church would rather not be in contact with the difficult reactions. One method of avoiding this is to start talking about reconciliation on behalf of God, and at the same time forcing the victims to suppress the pain and take on a responsibility which they do not have", says Øystein Gjerdrum.

Racism in relation to Indigenous Peoples operates on several levels : personal racism and structural/institutional racism. In that which is written above, some of the consequences for the individual are pointed out.

Institutionalised racism is expressed in several ways:

1. The legal system does not look after Indigenous Peoples« interests in a good enough way. Common law and oral tradition do not carry enough weight.
2. The relationship with the geographical areas where native people live are not without problems. There are numerous examples of Indigenous Peoples who were directly forced out of their native areas, for the benefit of tourism and other livelihoods. And prospective extraction of natural riches, like minerals, oil and others, will create problems in the future, because of the size of the economic resources. A concrete example would be the oil reserves in the Nensty's area.
3. The language problem is important. At the beginning of this century most Indigenous Peoples were monolingual with their mother tongue. The situation now is that more and more of the present generation do not know their native language to a satisfactory degree, but use the majority language. The deveopment of the different languages is therefore worrysome.
4. The language situation has also another side, as more and more Indigenous Peoples feel powerless against the public bearaucracy because of a lacking language knowledge of the majority language.
5. Within the public debate there are poliltical parties, eg. Fremskrittspartiet in Norway, who agree with producing racist attitudes by portraying positive discrimination of Indigenous Peoples (in this instance the Sámi), which is necessary to attain real equality, in a superfluous, partly untrue and biased way.

1. reiterate that co-operation with Indigenous Peoples is a part of the call of the chuches,
2. establish meeting places for Indigenous Peoples so that they can exchange information,
3. motivate increased knowledge of Indigenous Peoples rights,
4. listen to, respect and support Indigenous Peoples in all aspects of chuch life,
5. promote awareness and understanding for Indigenous Peoples' ways of life,
6. develop the will to co-operate with, and include Indigenous Peoples in churches and church societies,
7. promote co-operation with Indigenous Peoples organisations,
8. advocate governments to ratify and and implement international conventions that strenghten the rights of Indigenous Peoples,
9. to excert pressure on business corporations to make them respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples
10. to encourage and promote opportunities for participation of representatives of Indigenous Peoples in national and international foras discussing issues relating to Indigenous Peoples,
11. to withdraw from any involvement in business corporations resposible for activities that harm Indigenous Peoples and others.
12. to return to Indigenous Peoples land which churches have taken from them.

Lars Johnsen Member of KEK-WGRX