The Futures of Indigenous Peoples : 9-11 and the Trajectory of Indigenous Survival and Resistance

Many writers have predicted the end of indigenous peoples, globally, and especially for native nations in North America. Th omas Jeff erson Morgan, Commissioner of Indian Aff airs, in the late nineteenth century said, “Th e great body of Indians will become merged in the indistinguishable mass of our population” (Iverson 1999: 16–17; see Cadwalader and Deloria, 1984). However, they are not only “still here,” but also one of the fastest growing segments of the population of the U.S. (Snipp 1986, 1989, 1992; Nagel 1996). Globally, indigenous peoples number some 350 millions, and possibly more depending on how one defi nes “indigenous” (Wilmer 1993; Stavenhagen 1990: Ch. 8; Smith and Ward 2000; Sponsel 1995a). However, confrontations and confl icts between states and nonstate peoples are as old as states themselves (Hall 1983; Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997). Clearly, states have been singularly successful in displacing, absorbing, incorporating, assimilating, or destroying nonstate peoples for the fi ve Th omas D. Hall James V. Fenelon


INTRODUCTION
Many writers have predicted the end of indigenous peoples, globally, and especially for native nations in North America.Th omas Jeff erson Morgan, Commissioner of Indian Aff airs, in the late nineteenth century said, "Th e great body of Indians will become merged in the indistinguishable mass of our population" (Iverson 1999: 16-17;see Cadwalader and Deloria, 1984).However, they are not only "still here," but also one of the fastest growing segments of the population of the U.S. (Snipp 1986(Snipp , 1989(Snipp , 1992;;Nagel 1996).Globally, indigenous peoples number some 350 millions, and possibly more depending on how one defi nes "indigenous" (Wilmer 1993;Stavenhagen 1990: Ch. 8;Smith and Ward 2000;Sponsel 1995a).However, confrontations and confl icts between states and nonstate peoples are as old as states themselves (Hall 1983;Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997).Clearly, states have been singularly successful in displacing, absorbing, incorporating, assimilating, or destroying nonstate peoples for the fi ve

Th omas D. Hall James V. Fenelon
Th is paper explores the past, present, and future resistance of indigenous peoples to capitalist expansion.Th e central argument is that the survival of indigenous peoples, their identities, and their cultures, constitutes strong antisystemic resistance against global capitalism and against the deepening and the broadening of modern world-systemic or globalization processes.Furthermore, we argue that recent events often touted as turning points in history-the collapse of the Soviet Union, the 9-11 attack on the twin towers, and even the war on Iraq-are at most "blips on the radar" in a larger trajectory of change and resistance.Rather, the important features of indigenous survival are: (1) Indigenous peoples, despite an immense variety of forms of cultural and social organization, represent non-capitalist forms of organization.Th eir continued survival challenges the fundamental premises of capitalism and its increasingly global culture.
(2) Indigenous people' s challenges to global domination succeed less on economic, political, or military force, and more as fundamental challenges to the underpinnings of the logic of capitalism and the interstate system.(3) In order to learn from these resistance models, it is necessary to ground our understanding in two seemingly antithetical forms of knowledge: (a) information arising from indigenous cultures and values and (b) research about how the longue duree of the world-system shapes the form and timing of such movements.(4) Indigenous successes may serve as models and/ or inspirations for other forms of resistance.An important task is to discover what is unique to indigenous resistance and to specify what indigenous resistance has in common with other forms of resistance.Th omas D. Hall & James V. Fenelon 154 The Futures of Indigenous Peoples 155 thousand years that they have existed.Yet, despite myriad dire predictions, and more importantly repeated military and social actions directed against them by states, nonstate or indigenous peoples have not been obliterated.Admittedly, one response to this observation might be, "Not yet, but soon!"But this moment, this "soon," is now several centuries long.So the question remains, how and why have indigenous peoples survived the onslaughts against them?In particular, how have they survived into the late twentieth and early twenty-fi rst century when there are no regions remaining outside global capitalism, and no regions that have not been claimed by one or more states?Th e question of indigenous survival and resistance may, at fi rst glance, appear to have little or no bearing on assessing the impacts of 9-11 and like events.However, we argue there are several ways in which the two connect.First, what occurs at the fringes of the world-system is still part of the world-system.Indeed, some processes are best, and only occasionally, observed in the far peripheries (Hall 1989a(Hall , 2000(Hall , 2002a)).Second, we concur with the arguments of Dunaway (2003), Podobnik (2002), and Wallerstein (2003) that 9-11 has had little impact, which is to be expected since it is not a deviation or change in world-systemic processes but a logical, if extreme result of those processes.More specifi cally, following the arguments of Clark (2002) on the intensifi cation of world-systemic processes, especially the broadening and deepening of system processes (often glossed as globalization), makes "normal accidents" more, not less, likely.Tight network interconnections mean that small events reverberate quickly through the system.Th is would seem to contradict the fi rst point, but actually sustains it, in that "normal accidents" are just those normal or typical events of system functioning.Th ey are not exceptional.Th ird, following the arguments of Dunaway (2003b), while ethnic confl ict may not have become more common since the end of the cold war, it has become more costly to core states and a larger threat to system stability.Hence pressures are intense to minimize ethnic confl ict.As Dunaway argues, ethnic confl ict, too, is a normal result of system functioning.Yet the attempts to minimize it may well create more space within which indigenous peoples may survive and resist the inroads of global capitalism and the ideology of consumerism (Sklair 2002).Fourth, as Wickham (2002) argues, 9-11 and the war on terrorism could easily transmute into a new, global, and virulent form of "manifest destiny" in which the United States seeks to export its form of democracy and neoliberalism to the entire planet.Finally, if 9-11 does have impacts on some parts of the system, but not others, this too is important to study and understand.We argue that examination of indigenous survival and resistance is one avenue for such explorations.
We draw many of our examples from the western hemisphere, especially North and Central America where "Indian" nations actively resist social ordering processes from western, capitalistic society.Our rationale is quite simple: colonial expansion into the western hemisphere is tightly connected to the rise of the modern world-system from European states.Th is usually violent expansion included a land take-over literally on a continental scale, massive labor exploitation systems including genocide or slavery, natural resource extraction that fueled industrialization, and development of large states.Th e mythos of an American Revolution misses this central fact which becomes determinative of whether the indigenous peoples become violently incorporated, or not, into and by these states, which are dominated by the United States.We will return to these issues after presenting our answers to the puzzle of continual indigenous survival.
We begin our exploration with brief sketches of a sample of ways indigenous peoples have survived.To increase the precision of the discussion, we will then turn to some conceptual and defi nitional issues.Th ese, in turn, will require the re-examination of theoretical and empirical issues concerning indigenous survival Th is re-examination will entail questions about the origin, nature, and functioning of the capitalist world-system.It also directs attention to a second, related, puzzle, why ethnicity and ethnic confl ict, remain the major sources of war and confl ict in the last few decades.We will illustrate these issues with a few suggestive examples.Finally, by exploring the puzzle of how people without massive resources, numbers, or weapons can curtail the transformative and often destructive eff ects of global capitalism we will speculate on the general lessons about resistance to the expansion of global capitalism.

EXAMPLES OF INDIGENOUS RESISTANCE TO GLOBAL CAPITALISM
Indigenous resistance to global capitalism is world wide, diverse, and yet loosely interconnected.¹Many forms of resistance are covert, echoing Scott' s concept of "weapons of the weak" (1985);they often transmute and/or masquerade as something else.For instance, the events in Chiapas have often been cast in the light of a regional, a peasant (and hence a class), or a caudillo driven rebellion.Th ey are less often discussed as an indigenous Mayan rebellion.²Movements in ¹.Among key sources are: Bodley 1988Bodley , 1990;;Burger 1987;Gedicks 2001;Perry 1996;Smith and Ward 2002;Sponsel 1995aSponsel , 1995b;;Wilmer 1993. Barry Gills' s (2000) collection examines all types of antiglobalization movements as does Bennholdt-Th omsen et al. (2001).Th e entire Greenwood Press series on Endangered Peoples is also valuable.
².Some examples of the latter approach can be found in McMichael 2000; Boswell and Chase-Dunn 2000;Collier 1999;Katzenberger 1995;Mignolo 2002;Morton 2000. Th omas D. Hall & James V. Fenelon 156 The Futures of Indigenous Peoples 157 something of a mixed bag; although in the fi rst decade of the twenty-fi rst century alliances seem to be becoming more common and antagonism, less so.³Another form of resistance has been the overt, conscious eff orts to maintain "traditional culture."Here, we use "traditional culture," not as static and unchanging, but rather as evolving according to the desires of group members resisting domination, rather than in accord with desires or directions of outsiders (see Smelser 1992).Th at is, "traditional culture," like all other social forms and structures evolves and changes continuously, if sporadically and unevenly (Fenelon, 1998a: 27-30, 72;Smith and Ward 2000).According to Smelser (1992) culture, and hence "traditional culture," are best thought of in relation to domination and dominant groups that change in world-systems according to success or failure of their expansion.Munch and Smelser (1992) propose rebuilding paradigms inclusive of these constructs, which is what we attempt to do with respect to indigenous peoples.
Culture building can be another form of resistance.For instance there are 33 tribal colleges in the U.S. (American Indian Higher Education Consortium 2000; Boyer 1997).⁴Th ese are institutions of higher education, typically equivalents of junior colleges, run by various Native American groups.Th ey diff er from the typical U.S. junior college in the number of courses they off er that promote traditional culture, language, crafts, and customs.In some cases, language programs have been aimed at reviving or reinvigorating a language that has fallen out of use.Indeed, these are often their key missions.Th at is, tribal colleges are often one institutional means of preserving and enhancing "traditional cultures." Resistance can also take the form of building other localized institutions that conform to traditional cultural values.Th e Diné (Navajo) have several such institutions.Th e tribal police force, while acting much like any other rural police force in the U.S., is also culturally sensitive to Navajo traditions and works within them.More direct are the "peace maker courts" which avoid adversarial the United States, such as American Indian Movement (AIM), are often seen solely in terms of localized ethnic, urban, or racial rebellions.Indigenous resisters are often far ahead of those who report about them-connected via the United Nations, a large variety of their own organizations, and the internet (Langman et al. 2003;Smith and Ward 2000).Anna Tsing' s, (1993) In the Realm of the Diamond Queen, can be read as an account of ways in which local people, in this case Dayaks in Kalimitan, resist state incorporation.Indeed, Tsing' s account along with Stoler' s (1995) account of plantation resistance in Sumatra or Peluso' s (1992) account of forestry "management" in Java, have as a key component-if not the driving component-the struggle for the survival of indigenous cultures, identities, organization, and economies.Th is applies to indigenous peoples throughout Southeast Asia (e.g., Steinberg 1987, Sponsel 2000a, 2000b) and Asia in general (Barnes et al. 1995).In other cases traditional culture and organization itself is a resource that facilitates resistance and survival (Champagne 1989(Champagne , 1992;;Fenelon, 1998a).Indigenous resistance struggles are occurring all over the world, even in Europe as, for example, among the Saami (Eidheim 1969).Kurdish activities in West Asia and Miskito resistance in Nicaragua have long been noted as indigenous movements (Gurr and Harff 1994).Gurr' s, (1993) Minorities at Risk, is a catalog of such movements and Linda Smith' s, (1999) Decolonizing Methodologies, is itself an act of resistance against the hegemony of European rooted social science concepts.Her work is rooted in her Maori community and her academic experiences.
Th ese movements are so diverse, so fl uid in organization, goals, and methods they all but defy summary.Probably the most salient diff erence between typical class based forms of resistance, as opposed to global capitalism forms of resistance is the emphasis on local community, identity politics, land claims, and rights to a variety of traditional practices, which include alternative family organizations such as matrilineality and/or polygyny, communal ownership of resources such as land, the use of land for sacred ceremonies, and indigenous knowledge, that occasionally includes use of psychoactive substances.Many of these practices contradict, challenge, or threaten deeply held values in state-based systems.Th e most fundamental challenge to capitalism, though, comes from communal ownership of resources because it denies the legitimacy of private property rights.Contrary to what many early explorers, missionaries, and colonizers thought, and unfortunately many so-called development experts today may think, it is not that indigenous people do not understand individual ownership.Rather, they have long recognized what many environmental movements are beginning to force capitalists to accept: resources are always partially, if not wholly, "public goods" (to use the terminology of economists) and are thereby sites of contestation.Th e interactions of environmentalists and indigenous peoples have been ³.Gedicks (1993) provides an early view of indigenous and environmental movements in the context of Wisconsin.Gedicks (2001) provides a global summary, and clearly shows that the budding movement toward alliances is a global movement, often tied, if at times ambivalently, with antiglobalization movments.Nesper (2002) provides a detailed summary of the fi shing controversies in Wisconsin.
⁴. Boyer (1997) actually reports 31 such colleges, but two others have opened since that report was published.
Th omas D. Hall & James V. Fenelon 158 The Futures of Indigenous Peoples 159 techniques of Anglo courts by pursuing resolution of disputes, among Navajos, through means that are in accord with Navajo concepts of harmony.⁵Other forms of resistance are less institutionalized, but nonetheless important.Ward et al. (2000;and Baird-Olsen and Ward 2000) analyze how women among the northern Cheyenne have adapted conventional 12 step programs that address alcohol abuse or spouse abuse to Cheyenne culture, promoting Cheyenne family values.Miller (1994) and Chiste (1994) discuss the ways in which Native women are producing new feminisms within changing tribal governments.Another common institution among Native Americans in the U.S. is maintenance of matrilineal family systems, especially through the ownership of property.Th is often comes at a great price, as missionaries and bureaucratic functionaries have repeatedly attacked matrilineality as "barbaric," unchristian, or chaotic.Native American feminism often organizes in ways that oppose more mainstream feminist movements.Typically Native American feminists focus on issues of identity and cultural preservation as prior to more narrowly focused feminist concerns ( Jaimes and Halsey 1992;Shoemaker 1995).
Religion can be yet another form of resistance.Maintenance of religious practices over massive attempts to destroy them, asserts an entirely diff erent way of approaching the supernatural and the sacred.Among the most critical of these practices are lands that are sacred and necessary for religious ceremonies.Th is leads to confl icts over use of the land for sacred functions versus "productive" and/or "recreational" use (McLeod 2001).Today as "new agers" have begun to practice various forms of shamanism, Indian groups have protested such attempts to appropriate Native traditions (Churchill 1994(Churchill , 1996;;Rose 1992).
Th e revival of older traditions, such as the Sun Dance (see for example, Jorgensen 1972;Fenelon 1998a: 114, 288-294), can be another form of religious resistance.Th ese revivals hark back to many revitalization movements: the Longhouse religion of the Iroquois (Wallace 1969), the Ghost Dance movement (Brown 1976;Champagne 1983;DeMallie 1982;Landsman 1979;Th ornton 1986Th ornton , 1987)), and the Native American Church (La Barre 1964;Aberle 1982;Stewart 1987), etc. Th ese movements, all of which are somewhat syncretic, preserve many traditional values and have all met with some success in combating the destructiveness of incorporation into the capitalist world-system.Th e Longhouse religion has been a source of strength among Iroquois.Russell Th ornton (1986) argues persuasively that adoption of the Ghost Dance Religion helped many small groups that had suff ered severe demographic loss, due to disease, to recover both demographically and culturally.More recently the Native American Church (also known as the peyote religion) has been very successful in helping individuals recover from alcoholism.Also NAC has won several court battles that allow members to use peyote (Iverson 1999: 181-182).
All of these religious traditions are vastly diff erent from the various monotheisms found in the states of the modern world-system.Th eir survival and growth is an important form of resistance to the ideologies of the modern world-system and to pressures for increasing homogeneity of culture due to various globalization processes.Moreover, they are tied to "traditional" culture in important ways for continuing resistance to hegemonic domination.Some of the most signifi cant forms of resistance are the various ways that resources are managed collectively, for collective good.Phrased alternatively, there are various ways of pursuing collective rationality.Here one must be careful not to read this as conventional "public goods" administration.Th is goes much further, in collective ownership of goods-land and livestock most commonly-that are typically individually, privately owned commodities in the capitalist world-system.
One of the more dramatic examples of such resistance is the continuing eff ort of Lakota peoples to regain control of the Black Hills.Several court decisions, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have determined that the territory of the Black Hills was illegally taken from the Lakota peoples (Lazarus, 1991;Iverson 1999:117;Churchill 1996:69-80).In accord with U.S. jurisprudence the settlement of this claim has been monetary.Th e Lakota peoples, however, have steadfastly refused such commodifi ed settlements and have insisted on the return of the land that they consider sacred.Th e intensity of this commitment is underscored by the relative poverty of Lakota people.Shannon county, South Dakota, where Pine Ridge reservation is located, (the reservation closest to the Black Hills) has been, since 1980, the poorest county in the U.S. Despite the temptation to take the cash settlement, the Lakotas have continued to reject such a settlement and continue to struggle for the return of their land.
Running through all these discussions for Indigenous Peoples in the U.S. has been the issue of sovereignty.Because of initial treaty agreements, indigenous peoples in the U.S. have a special relationship, directly with the U.S. federal government (Deloria and Wilkins, 2000).It is on this legal status that many actions of Native American groups rest.Indeed, sovereignty issues are often the basis of challenges to states around the world and cut to the heart of the interstate system built on the Peace of Westphalia (1648) (Wilmer 1993(Wilmer , 2002;;Alfred and Wilmer 1997).John Stack (1997) argues that various ethnic movements continually challenge the structure and processes of the interstate system and our understandings of it.
Although Native peoples have met with some success in maintaining sovereignty, they have had to fi ght on European grounds-within European law (for detailed examples from northern New Spain see Cutter 1995aCutter , 1995b).We will discuss the sovereignty issue in more detail later.Recently, one of the more outstanding successes has been to use the doctrine of sovereignty to build various gaming operations (Mullis and Kamper 2000;Fenelon 2000).By exploiting the contradictory desires for access to gambling and a desire to forbid it, American Indians have begun to turn considerable profi ts.But for other groups, such as the Choctaw, this success is fragile and volatile and subject to federal redefi nition (Faiman-Silva 1997).
Th e question remains, how much they have had to give up to win these victories.By fi ghting European civilization on its own turf, they have had to accept some of the premises of that turf.Th omas Biolsi argues that the law is "a fundamental constituting axis of modern social life-not just a political resource or an institution but a constituent of all social relations of domination" (Biolsi 1995, p. 543).Th us, courts have been a leading institutional means of commodifying everything; especially land (Biolsi 1995(Biolsi , 2001)).Still, indigenous peoples continue to use legal systems to resist incorporation and global capitalism, when they are available with direct access.Here we must note an important diff erence between indigenous struggles in the core or "fi rst" world and those in the "third world" or peripheral areas.Th e rule of law carries much more force in the fi rst world, or core, and so is a more useful tool there.Th is diff erence holds as a "rule of thumb" but fi nds exceptions in both directions.Most notable when making this distinction is acknowledging temporal analysis, since North American genocides were common well into the second half of the nineteenth century (Th ornton 1987), even as Canada and U.S. indigenous "sovereigns" were internally recognized (Fenelon 2002).
Th ere have been many forms of symbolic resistance.For instance, political pressure has led to several national and/or state parks reserving some areas for traditional Native American ceremonies, such as Bear Butte, Devil' s Postpile, Medicine Wheel, etc. (McLeod 2001).Another example has been the movement against the use of Native American images as sports mascots (Fenelon 1999), or the national movement to remove the term "squaw" from many place names.Th e expansion of the Powwow circuit is also a vital form of asserting Indianness that both reinforces Indian identity and presents Indianness to a general audience (Mattern 1996;Lassiter 1997).
In recent decades there have been movements that have challenged globalizing capitalism (Wilmer 1993).Th ese movements have included those by NGOs such as Cultural Survival, International Work Group on Indigenous Aff airs, the Center for World Indigenous Studies, or the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations.Th ere are also several Indigenous organizations (see Wilmer 1993: 227-229;Smith and Ward 2000).Most of these movements and organizations represent indigenous peoples on both the social group level and collectively, with great variation in their approaches toward issues, the nature of resistance, and the amount of their participation in political spheres.
Th e Zapatista movement centered in Chiapas (EZLN) has been one of the most dramatic.Th e Zapatista ideology, and to a large extent Zapatista practices, contradict the logic of capitalism.Th ey reject modernization and development (Ross 1995;Katzenberger 1995;Collier 1999).Mignolo (2002) argues that the Zapatista movement constitutes an alternative to greco-roman legacies of state making.Th e Zapatistas seek to maintain traditional life ways in the face of overwhelming forces to assimilate to capitalist culture and practice in opposition to NAFTA and FTAA.Th e recent march to Mexico City and the demonstrations in the Zocalo, (March 13, 2001) accompanied by a huge outpouring of civil society in support of the Zapatistas, are some indication of the growing impact of such movements.
To facilitate further discussion of indigenous survival we present some definitions, concepts, and observations.All these are backed by extended arguments, made elsewhere, but not recapitulated in detail here.

DEFINITIONS, CONCEPTS, OBSERVATIONS
Th e category, "indigenous peoples," itself is a gross simplifi cation of an immense variety of types of social organizations (Champagne 1999a ;Stavenhagen 1990;Wolf 1999).Th is diversity is arguably greater than the diversity of types of state organizations found throughout the 500 year history of the "modern worldsystem," or even the 5000 year history of all states (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997Hall , 1998;;Frank and Gills 1993;Hall 1989b: ch 3;Sanderson 1999;Smith 1999).
Either term, "indigenous peoples" or "non-state society," lump this diversity into an overly simple category that emphasizes these diff erences from states, but little else.Yet, these diff erences are key .First, these are not state-based organizations.Th is, however, does not mean that they did not have identities and political structures.Nor is this to deny that there were indigenous states in North and South America prior to European contact-there were: Aztecs, Maya, Inka, etc.American groups is a challenge to the capitalist conception of states.However, the challenge is not only political-economic, but also cultural.
Culture and identity politics have become very highly contested issues in recent decades.Within these debates, the names of indigenous peoples are particularly contested.⁸Th us, it is useful to explain why we use some terms and eschew others.Such things can become especially insidious when their roots are lost.In order to avoid both reading the past into the present and the present into the past requires distinctions that enable us to describe changes with some precision.On the one hand, some argue that to label chiefdoms "nations" confounds a profoundly modern form of social organization with a much older, and very diff erent form of social organization.On the other hand, others argue that variations among "nations" are suffi ciently distinguished by diff erentiation from the concept of "nation-state."⁹Th e term "indigenous" is inherently troublesome and should be accepted as such, (Snipp 1986(Snipp , 1989(Snipp , 1992;;Stavenhagen 1990: Ch. 8;Hall and Nagel 2000).For instance, in mainland Southeast Asia almost everyone is both indigenous and usurped, and typically several times in each role.It is a region where peoples have crossed and recrossed, conquered and reconquered each other for millennia.An ethnic map of Southeast Asia looks like a Jackson Pollock painting (Lebar et al. 1964).Who is indigenous cannot be settled by conceptual parsing.History is complex and messy.If we are going to construct theoretical accounts to deal with it, they must recognize that complexity and messiness.
We use "indigenous" to refer to people who "were in that place" when some others came and usurped some or all of their political control and power and their economic resources.Th ey should have been there for several generations.However, this, too, is politicized.At times, apologists for usurpation of indigenous territory by the U.S. have argued that this or that "tribe" had just recently conquered their traditional territory from some other "tribe."Th is argument is conceptually inaccurate, often factually wrong and sometimes downright bogus.(Chase-Dunn and Hall 1998;La Lone 2000).Furthermore, some indigenous societies took on, and sometimes lost state-like qualities, including the Cahokia (Forbes 1998;O'Brien 1992) and the Haudenosaunee peoples (Iroquois, see Snow 1994).Th e point is, diff erences in social organization are crucial, but they are avowedly not assertions about claims to rights, or international status, which we will discuss later.Second, all these forms of social organization are non-capitalist, a term often glossed as "pre-capitalist."Th e latter term has two unfortunate connotations.On the one hand, it refers to organizations that preceded the advent of capitalism, taking for the moment that capitalism, as a mode of accumulation is less than 500 years old.A second, dysfunctional connotation is that such organizations are precursors of capitalism.Th us, at best they are "primitive" forms, and at worst outmoded and outdated.Our point is that these forms of organization are fundamentally rooted in modes of organization, production, and accumulation that have little to do with capitalist accumulation of capital, and thus resist assimilation into those kinds of systems.⁶Th at said it is critical to recognize, as Eric Wolf argued so persuasively (1982), that these peoples do, and did, have histories separate and distinct from those of Europeans states, and, indeed, all states (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997Hall , 1998)).Furthermore, indigenous peoples have been forced to deal with waves of European expansion and the increasing globalization of capitalism over the last 500 years.Many peoples have been incorporated into the capitalist world-system, but far from completely.Many have resisted incorporation heroically, and untold numbers have died doing so.⁷ A key aspect of this argument is that indigenous peoples who struggle to preserve much, or some, of their noncapitalist roots-for example, communally held property rights-constitute, by virtue of their continuing existence, a form of anti-capitalist resistance to incorporation into the world-system, and a challenge to the assumption of the state as the basic political unit of human social organization.Th is is yet another way in which the claim to sovereignty by Native ⁶.Capital accumulation refers to amassing wealth in any form, capitalist accumulation to "the amassing of wealth by means of the making of profi ts from commodity production" (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997, p. 271).For more elaborate discussions of the changes over last 5,000 years see Chase-Dunn and Hall (1997) and Frank and Gills (1993).
⁹. On the former see : Hall 1998a: Hall , 1998b;;Riggs 1994Riggs , 1998aRiggs , 1998bRiggs , 1998c.On the latter see: Fenelon 1998a; Deloria and Lytle, 1984; Deloria and Wilkins 2000.Th omas D. Hall & James V. Fenelon 164 The Futures of Indigenous Peoples 165 For instance, with respect to the founding of the League of the Iroquois see Mann and Fields (1997); or with respect to Lakota claims for the Black Hills see Goodman (1992).All this is compounded by the political/ideological use of such terms.Th is, of course, is what some of the postmodernist critique is about, the power to make and enforce names.Th is is compounded by at least two uses of the term "tribe": (1) a generic term that is more-or-less synonymous with "nonstate"; (2) a technical legal term that refers to treaty-sanctioned and recognized peoples in the U.S. With respect to usage (1), but defi nitely not (2), "tribes" (1) are not states.Rather, they are diff erent forms of social organization (see, for example Fried 1975or Hall 1989b: Ch. 3).A good deal of confusion is generated by the popular and persistent, yet erroneous, use of "nation," "state," and "nation-state" as synonyms.With respect to "tribe" (2) most of the treaties made by the U.S., and in most cases by those colonizing forces of expanding world-systems entering into such agreements, were made with "nations" and not tribes.Th at is, the treaties recognized them as political equivalents, regardless of social organization.
Finally, all of these social structures have, themselves, evolved over considerable time.Th ey transform from one thing to another.An indigenous group that continues to exist today is not a "living fossil."Rather, it too has evolved, often having changed and adapted to a context in which it has been surrounded by one or more, typically hostile, states (Smith and Ward 2000).Indeed, one of the powerful insights from world-system theory, modern or ancient, is that the fundamental entity evolving is the system itself and that the evolution of any component of a system must be understood within the context of system evolution.Indeed, Rata argues, for the Maori people; their very concept and especially the practice of indigenousness is changing.Th e salient context today, and into the 21st century is that it is a capitalist world-system that is continuing to evolve and change.

Genocide, Ethnocide, and Culturicide¹⁰
Within these evolutionary processes there are many ways an ethnic or an indigenous group might be destroyed.Genocide, ethnocide, and culturicide share an element of intentional destruction of a group.Genocide is probably the most familiar, and certainly the most brutal: the outright murder of all members of an identifi able descent group, or the attempt to do so.In contrast ethnocide and culturicide involve attempts at to destroy a group' s identity, and/or culture, without necessarily killing individual human beings.
Ethnocide is an attempt to destroy the identity of a group.In its ideal-typical form it would entail full assimilation of individuals into the dominant group, although some cultural elements might still persist.¹¹A key feature here, besides the obvious internal contradiction of destroying an identity but allowing some of its "content" to remain, is that the group, qua a group, disappears.In contrast, culturicide is an attempt to kill a culture, whether or not its members survive, and whether or not they retain a separate identity (Fenelon 1995(Fenelon , 1997(Fenelon , 1998a)).A notorious example is that of Richard Pratt, founder of the Carlisle Indian School, whose explicit goal for the school was "to kill the Indian, but save the man" (Adams 1988(Adams , 1995)).While Pratt seems seriously retrograde at the beginning of the 21st century, he was a humanitarian reformer in the context of the late 19th century, when many still called for outright genocide (Hoxie 1984;Adams 1995).Here the separate identity may survive, but the cultural content is eliminated.
Ethnocide and culturicide are somewhat overlapping processes.Each process, and indeed which process operates, are largely conditioned on the degree to which group distinctions are racialized.Obviously, to the degree that readily visible phenotypically distinctive features mark a group, maintenance of identity in face of destruction of the culture is more possible.Ethnocide, and especially culturicide, are often intimately intertwined with racialization processes.Th ese interconnections warrant further analysis, but we leave that task aside for now.
As already noted, ethnocide is closely similar to the older concept of assimilation; in which one group adjusts its culture to become progressively more like that of another group.Th e diff erence is the clear intent to eliminate the group identity.Culturicide, on the other hand, does not need to destroy the identity as long as the "content" of the identity becomes nearly the same as that of the dominant group, and thus subordinate to the socio-economic goals, practices, and ideologies of those in power.
¹¹. Ortiz (1985Ortiz ( , 1984) ) analyzes relations in Central and North America using a rubric of ethnocide, refl ected in analysis by Stavenhagen (1990).While ethnocide has been practiced extensively in Central America, except where resistance has been more successful, culturicide appears more closely related to policy constructs in modern states that do not want to appear genocidal to the external world.Culturicide also applies to non-indigenous people, connected as policy to racially subordinated groups and racebased slavery in the United States.¹⁰.Th is discussion draws heavily on the work of James Fenelon (1995Fenelon ( , 1997Fenelon ( , 1998aFenelon ( , 1998bFenelon ( , 1999) ) who developed the concept of culturicide.Clastres (1980) makes the earliest use of the term ethnocide, albeit not with this precise meaning.

Th omas D. Hall & James V. Fenelon 166
The Futures of Indigenous Peoples 167 as system-wide processes, and especially the complex interactions between the two (Hall 1989b).Incorporation is a two-way, interactive process.To label this entire range "incorporation" masks important variations and makes it more diffi cult to understand diff erent processes and outcomes that occur on the frontiers of world-systems.¹³Some changes induced by incorporation may be reversible, others are not, or only with great diffi culty.For instance Dunaway cites comments by a Cherokee chief who lamented in the 1700s that young men had become so dependent on guns that they could no longer use, not to mention produce suitable bows and arrows.Another common result is that indigenous peoples are relocated to "reserve" areas.Th ese go by many names: reservations, reserves, domestic nations, establiciementos de paz, etc. Th ese are often "temporary," where "temporary" can be a century or more (for a global survey see Perry 1996).States seek to abolish such reserves for a variety of reasons.Frequently reserves become attractive for further development especially when some formerly unknown or "useless" mineral, such as oil or uranium, becomes valuable due to new technological developments.States may tire of the administrative and economic overhead of such special status areas and/or peoples.Both have been common in the United States where the special legal status of American Indians generates all sorts of legal and political problems.Eras when a drive for a "national culture" increases can create extensive pressures for assimilation to the dominant culture.One legacy of the obsession with nation-building, common in 20th century third world countries, is for states to become "embarrassed" by the continued existence of "backward" or "primitive" population segments.Th eir typical response is vigorous, often coercive, drives for assimilation (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997;Hall 1998a).
Th e extension of world-systems theory into precapitalist settings suggests additional refi nements of the analysis of incorporation, which shed some light on commonalities of incorporation in the modern world-system (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997;Hall 2002b).First, incorporation is not one-dimensional, but multidimensional, refl ecting four types of world-system boundaries.Th us, incorporation can be economic (for either bulk goods or luxury goods), political/military, or cultural.Th e latter assumes that culture, however defi ned, is a type of information.Second, incorporation often creates multiple frontiers, corresponding to each of the boundaries (see Hall 2000Hall , 2002a)).Th ird, ceteris paribus, incorporation will begin at the furthest boundaries, information and luxury goods, and So how is it that indigenous peoples have resisted attempts at ethnocide or culturicide?As already noted, one way is by remaining small, and therefore relatively nonthreatening, at least to the point that the costs of pursuing ethnocide or culturicide have not been worth while.Another form of resistance has been via relative isolation.Th is, however, is most often an accident of history-being located within a region of little interest to the state or world-system, owning or controlling resources seen to have no or little value to the larger system.Building upon, or using, a recognized land base to keep the community viable are also resistance forms, but these forms are more of the order of passive resistance.
We listed many other more active forms of resistance at the start of this paper.How eff ective they will be in the long run (whatever we mean by "long") remains unclear.Clearly, resistance that focuses on symbols runs the risk of allowing culturicide to proceed; in that the identity, via the symbols, is maintained while its content becomes progressively more assimilated to the dominant culture.
However, some of the other forms noted above preserve not only symbols, but also material practices that contradict how capitalism is practiced.Th ey represent alternative ways of organizing human life.What is far from clear, however, is whether these too can ultimately become "merely symbolic."Is an American Indian nation which insists on tribal sovereignty, which administers resources according to principles of collective rationality, yet, which externally participates in a capitalist world-system according to capitalist principles, resisting globalizing capitalism, or slowly evolving into an alternative form of capitalism?Th is, it seems, is the key question in the survival of indigenous peoples everywhere.However, such processes are not exclusively modern, but have, as we noted, occurred since states were fi rst invented some fi ve millennia ago.

INCORPORATION INTO WORLDSYSTEMS: ANCIENT OR MODERN
When a world-system expands, new areas are incorporated, and boundaries are formed and transformed.¹²Incorporated areas and peoples, even when incorporation is relatively limited in degree, often experience profound eff ects from incorporation and occasionally devastating ones.Th ey also react against and resist these eff ects to whatever degree possible.Th us, the study of incorporation entails close attention to local conditions, actors, and actions as well ¹².Major discussions of the concept of incorporation may be found in: Wallerstein 1974Wallerstein , 1989;;Hopkins, et al 1987;Markoff 1994;Carlson 2001;Hall 1986Hall , 1989b;;Hall 2002b.Herein, "land" issues including control and sovereignty are obscured by Manifest Destiny ideologies, often erasing knowledge of land tenure systems of indigenous peoples.

Th omas D. Hall & James V. Fenelon 168
The Futures of Indigenous Peoples 169 proceed to narrower, more intense forms along the political/military boundary and fi nally along the bulk goods dimension.Fourth, relations among the dimensions of incorporation are complex theoretically and empirically.
For instance, many of the American Indian groups we know today were built from an aboriginal base of loosely connected living groups during the process of incorporation, e.g., the Diné (Navajo) (Hall 1989b(Hall , 1998b)).While language, customs, and a sense of being the same "people" predate the arrival of Europeans, Diné-wide institutions such as the Navajo Tribal Council were developed only well into the incorporation process,.Stephen Cornell (1988) argues that in early stages of United States expansion, identity for Native American groups was typically larger than any political organization (as among the Diné or Lakota)and subsequent political incorporation often reversed this relationship typically creating sub-group as well as supra-group identities.
Just how and why this works is problematic.To illustrate, the Lakota were not just loosely connected groups, but quite literally had diff erent sets of sociopolitical connectedness that allowed for greater fl uidity of local and regional decision-making.Th at is, Lakota peoples may not have been bands, but had an organization more akin to a segmentary lineage system.Th ese systems allowed Lakota to successfully fi ght U.S. intrusions, and forced the U.S. to use the term "nation" during treaty-making.Th e same pressures further forced designation of "chiefs" (since they did not exist in that manner earlier) who would head up "tribal councils" that ultimately turn into the form designated in 1934 Indian Reorganization Act reconstructions (Biolsi 1992).Identity and political organization are undiff erentiated for the Lakota until after 1868, when their divisions became a form of cultural domination (Fenelon 1995(Fenelon , 1998a(Fenelon , 1998b(Fenelon , 1999)).
In other parts of the world, the process of attempted incorporation and resistance to it is much older.Indigenous resistance to expanding world-systems, empires, states, and individuals is ubiquitous and has been continual since states were fi rst created.Th is carries several important implications for analysis of resistance to world-systemic processes.First many of the putative evolutionary sequences and/or so-called pristine forms of organization are highly suspect.Th ey are, more often than not, themselves products of long interactions.Second, this suggests caution in always attributing the deleterious consequences of incorporation to "capitalism."Rather, there is more continuity in this area between tributary and capitalist world-systems.Th ird, what does seem to be diff erent in the capitalist world-system is the overwhelming power of states relative to indigenous groups, its truly global reach, and the preponderance of capitalist reasons for expansion.Th e latter include expansion especially for resources, labor, and markets.Fourth, the concomitant rise in nation building in the modern worldsystem, as noted above, has led to much stronger attempts at assimilation of incorporated groups than was common in tributary world-systems (Hall 1987(Hall , 1998a)).Finally, following Eric Wolf (1982), the histories of these encounters are almost exclusively written from the point of view of expanding state systems.Almost universally, these histories take as axiomatic that state-based systems are inherently superior to nonstate systems, and that transforming the latter is "helping" them.
Incorporation into the modern world-system can also have divisive eff ects.For the White Earth Anishinaabeg (Chippewa or Ojibwa), increasing incorporation fractured old clan and band distinctions and created a new division between more and less assimilated Anishinaabeg, or in local parlance, between full-and mixed-bloods (Meyer 1994).Sandra Faiman-Silva (1997) fi nds much the same processes among the Mississippi Choctaw.Indeed, the full-blood/ mixed-blood distinction is an important consequence of incorporation into the European world-system with far-reaching legal consequences.Th at is, blood quantum becomes covertly connected with development of highly racialized policies (Smedley 1999) that act directly and institutionally indirectly, as agents of domination and subordination.Even splitting into factions can be the result of the policies, actions, and resistances to incorporation and domination.
Partial incorporation can simultaneously transform indigenous peoples and contribute to state building.Kristine L. Jones (1998) argues that trade among indigenous peoples and between indigenous peoples and Spanish settlers in the Pampas helped in the process of state-building by fostering increased trade.Pekka Hämäläinen (1998) makes a similar argument for the role of Comanches in the southwestern Great Plains.He argues that trade with indigenous peoples helped strengthen New Mexico while also building a tribal political structure among Comanche bands.
Gender roles and gender relations are also reshaped by incorporation.Women are often harmed by incorporation even while men may at times benefi t, although the entire group usually suff ers.Th ere are gender and class diff erentials in contraception (Bradley 1997), fertility (Ward 1984), labor force participation (Ward 1990), and household structure and function (Smith et al.1988).Th e key process here seems to be that new resources are diff erentially accessible by gender, usually giving increased power to men, and decreasing social power and changing the social roles of women, although that is not always the case (see studies in Bose & Acosta-Belen 1995).Both Dunaway (1996aDunaway ( , 1997Dunaway ( , 2000) ) and Faiman-Silva (1997) fi nd this to hold for Cherokee and Choctaw.Th e impacts of incorporation on the social construction of gender and gender relations remain poorly studied.Clearly, however, studies of incorporation and resistance are an excellent venue for taking gender issues seriously, as called for by Ward (1993), Misra (2000), and Dunaway (2001).Even though resistance to incorporation is old, survival of indigenous groups remains problematic.Th is survival is one of two persisting puzzles: 1) the persistence of ethnic groups and 2) the persistence of indigenous groups.Both are distinctive in that they are organizations not based on capitalist relations.Let us hasten to say, before someone jumps up to beat us about the head and shoulders with the "primordialist" or "essentialist" bludgeons, that we claim neither.Rather, we claim that both types of groups have their fundamental social links around kinship and community, irrespective of how they make their livings.Here we must confront a basic misunderstanding by Marx, that ties of common work experiences-relations of production-are often not suffi ciently powerful to overcome completely ties of kinship and face-to-face community.Th is is why both nations and movements adopt metaphors of kinship to build solidarity; or to invert Benedict Anderson, that is why the "imagined community," the nationstate, must be imagined.Th is is not to gainsay that such a transformation might happen, but rather to note that it has not happened completely.
When these ties of kinship and community coincide with ways of making a living, they become extremely powerful in binding people together and in maintaining a sense of solidarity.Th is is precisely what happens within most indigenous communities.Even where members participate in the wider capitalist economy and its wage-labor processes, they remain tied to their indigenous communities.Th us, it is no accident that the most successful of such groups are ones with a continuously existing land base-even if it is a land base from which they have become widely dispersed.In the homeland, means of making a living, or of surviving, are tied to that land base: tribal identities linked to reservations in the U.S.; to traditional lands elsewhere.
Phrased alternatively land still maintains for many indigenous peoples meanings that preceded what Polanyi called the "Great Transformation."¹⁴Again, we are not asserting some sort of "primitiveness," but alternative ways of viewing land, not as a commodity, but as something much broader.Th is comes out again and again in the resistance statements of indigenous peoples, especially those called "Indians" on the North and Central American continents.
Keeping the particular in mind as the ultimate reference point of Indian knowledge, we can pass into a discussion of some of the principles of the Indian forms of knowledge.Here power and place are dominance concepts-power being the living energy that inhabits and/or composes the universe, and place being the relationship of things to each other (Deloria 2001:22-23).
Deloria is referencing, in Lakota, power as "wakan" (as a living mysterious energy), and place as "maka" (the earth, but used in sacred language as "unci maka" or the earth as our grandmother, now the direct reference to "ina maka" or "mother earth"), thus establishing connectivity and relationships.Experientially and theoretically, commodification of land and resources is the polar opposite of these philosophies.
Indigenous peoples were not so much unable to understand private property or land boundaries and established monetary value, but were in fact rejecting those concepts as invalid along both spiritual and social value systems.Th at rejection continues, whether found in Crazy Horse' s statement: "One does not sell the land which the people walk upon", to the Zapatista' s rejection of private ownership of the plantations, and is exemplifi ed, for the White Mountain Apache, in Basso' s (1996) "wisdom sits in places".Each of these traditions, represents resistance of the highest order to early globalization, (Lakota, 1860(Lakota, -1990; Apache, 1870 and on, and the EZLN contemporary).
Indian accumulation of information is directly opposed to the Western scientific method of investigation, because it is primarily observation.Indians look for messages in nature, but they do not force nature to perform functions that it does not naturally do… [Indian students] must always keep in mind that traditional knowledge of their people was derived from centuries, perhaps millennia, of experience.Thus stories that seem incredible when compared with scientific findings may indeed represent that unique event that occurs once a century and is not likely to be repeated.Western knowledge, on the other hand, is so well controlled by doctrine that it often denies experiences that could provide important data for consideration (Deloria 2001: 28).
Here we see how knowledge systems are constructed, defended and expressed by both dominant groups and those in resistance.This is profound and demonstrates even deeper issues, though they certainly relate to the land and the cosmos.Fenelon' s experience with the Spirit Lake Nation (Devil' s Lake Sioux) in the Dakotas exemplifies this well.Apparently, "traditionalists" had been telling engineers, especially the Army Corps, "the waters" (minnewakan) rose every seventh generation (approximately one hundred years) and cleansed the land for renewal.The Corps called that "old Indian talk" until the waters did indeed, rise in the 1990' s, and rise all the way to state and federal governments requesting massive intervention.In response, the Corps proposed to build huge pumping stations on the trust reservation lands and dump the excess (some would say polluted runoff ) over the ridge into the Cheyenne River, which flows into the ¹⁴.Th e literature by and on Polanyi is enormous.We base our comments on the following writings: Dalton 1968;Polanyi 1944Polanyi , 1957Polanyi , 1977;;Polanyi, Arensberg, and Pearson 1957.

Th omas D. Hall & James V. Fenelon 172
The Futures of Indigenous Peoples 173 porated or encapsulated groups are, or recently were, organized according to the logic of a diff erent mode of accumulation.
Th e point we wish to emphasize here, while in some ways obvious, is in other ways obscure.Because such groups are organized according to a diff erent logic, they are more of a threat to the overall system than challengers who are more powerful-economically, politically, or militarily-because they are proof that the logic of the dominant system is not "natural," "normal," "manifest," or "inevitable," but rather has been constructed by human beings, whether consciously or not.In short, by their very continued existence, indigenous peoples are concrete empirical proof that shouts of TINA [Th ere Is No Alternative (to global capitalism)] are patently false (see Bennholdt-Th omsen et al. 2001, for further examples).More germane to this discussion is how "manifest destiny" ideologies have informed, if not distorted, much social analysis of indigenous peoples in North America and elsewhere.
Currently, with the end of the cold war and the collapse of any sort of immediately viable socialist alternative to capitalism as an organizing principle for human society, these challenges increase in salience.Th is, of course, makes the puzzle of their continuing survival all the more puzzling.If they off er such a threat to ideological hegemony of the current system, why have they not been summarily crushed?In part, the answer is that many have.But within capitalist culture' s self-conception, wholesale slaughter of human beings for the "crime" of being different has become unacceptable, or at least "gauche."Discriminatory treatment, ranging from death to social isolation, follows a similar pattern.¹⁵Th us, other techniques have been tried, most have failed miserably, and often have backfi red, strengthening oppositional identities.But also, as in tributary states where the primary concern was that ethnic "others" deliver tribute, not conform, the same is true within the capitalist system where the primary concern is that "others" enter the market and play by capitalist rules.Furthermore, even when such challengers use whatever they gain from "playing the capitalist game" (as with Native north-running Red River, which goes through Fargo and Grand Forks and then into Canada.Although the coalition defeated the project (primarily through sovereignty issues) and the ridiculous notion of dumping water into one of the nation' s worst flooded river basins, experiential knowledge known only through the oral tradition not only predicted this water run, but also observed the beneficial qualities.In this respect, both resistance and cultural survival are important resources, albeit mostly at odds with a system of capitalist accumulation and values based on monetary worth.
By extension, we can learn a great deal from studies of pre-modern-worldsystem ethnic relations.States, since they were fi rst invented, have necessarily been poly-or multi-ethnic.Th e ethnically unitary nation-state is a chimera-in the ancient and the modern world (McNeill 1986;Gurr 1993, Hall 1998a, Laczko 2000).States, or more properly the world-systems within which they are located, always expand.Hence, even if states and world-systems are ethnically homogeneous at their fi rst formation, they quickly incorporate new peoples and become diverse.In tributary world-systems, constituent states often do not attempt to assimilate those who are ethnically diff erent to the dominant ethnic culture, though some do, they never succeed completely.Rather, they are concerned with the collection of tribute.Clearly, the constituent ethnic groups, within any one state, are hierarchically organized.Egalitarian situations are rare.Th ey are artifacts of peculiarly balanced social forces.Over time, groups do, however, change, transform and transmute into diff erent forms.In tributary systems, such changes are typically slow, often imperceptible in the short term, so identities are easily confl ated with both territory and biology.In recent times these processes have generally sped up, so that situational, reactive, or socially-constructed ethnicity is now not only obvious to most observers, but all too typically perceived as "normal," or "natural."Th ere are also abundant examples of the content of identities converging even while the boundaries between then are reinforced (Barth 1969).Barth argues, "that a drastic reduction of cultural diff erence between ethnic groups does not correlate in any simple way with a reduction in the organizational relevance of ethnic identities, or a breakdown in boundary-maintaining processes" (Barth 1969: 32).But a closer look at most ethnic changes reveals that they typically take generations or centuries to occur, and are often accompanied by much confl ict.
One consequence of the space-time compression (Harvey 1989) associated with increasing globalization and the various cyclical processes of the modern world-system, especially in recent decades, has been that these pressures for change of identity have become more overt, explicit, and obvious.Hence, not surprisingly, so too have the eff orts to resist those pressures become more overt and explicit.Th e clashes and confl icts seem to be most extreme when the incor-¹⁵.In early August 2002 the Turkish Parliament, after vociferous debate, abolished the death penalty and gave greater rights to the Kurds.Both moves were prompted by a desire on the part of a thin majority of members to join the EU.Presuming the law stands and is enforced [which may be rash assumptions], this will incrementally improve the lives of Turkish Kurds, but is not a move to a "golden age" of Kurdish autonomy.Yet, this is an example of how changing global climate can change the playing fi eld in the struggle for indigenous rights.However, regional and perhaps global concerns about Iraqi Kurds' insurrection sit within four states (Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria) all of which are vested in not having any form of a Kurdistan.

Th omas D. Hall & James V. Fenelon 174
The Futures of Indigenous Peoples 175 American gaming operations) to preserve their non-capitalist organization (such as when Native Americans use profi ts from gaming operations collectively for collective goals) they have not been perceived as a severe threat to the overall system.Th ere are at least two aspects to this.First, they do not challenge the system in an attempt to replace or overthrow it.Rather, they seek to carve out a niche within it.Second, most are relatively small-demographically, politically, economically, in resource endowments, etc. Th us, the threats of their existence as alternatives to the dominant mode of organization are outweighed by the selfcontradictions that would be made manifest by overt attempts to destroy them.Within this, however, we should not lose sight of the very skillful eff orts of indigenous leaders to play upon precisely these contradictions to defend their niches within the world-system.Franke Wilmer (1993) has observed that one source of indigenous survival in the latter part of the twentieth century, derives from the skills of indigenous leaders to articulate that any justifi cation for eliminating their existence as separate groups, is also a repudiation of the Peace of Westphalia (1648) and such "treaties" and therefore the entire interstate system in the modern world.So far, this has been too high of a price to pay.Following Biolsi (2001), we further note that the law can also increase local animosities because it can obviate locally developed modi vivendi and force groups into stronger contention than might otherwise have occurred.
However, other processes are also at work.In order to discuss them more precisely it is useful to introduce a few more distinctions.
STATES AND SOVEREIGNTY Wallerstein (2002) has identifi ed the strong reliance of global capitalism on the nation-state system, and its multitude of connections to military-political networks (Chase-Dunn et al. 2002;Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997) that prop up and enforce the economic systems and domination.Sklair (2002) argues that now the global system is more important than states.While recognizing that world-system analysis has many insights into the global system, he still faults it for relying too much on the state as a unit of analysis.While the disagreement is relatively mild, our position is intermediate.Even as transnational capitalism and the emerging transnational capitalist class (Sklair 2001) seeks to subvert and/or transcend the state in many ways, they also use it extensively.While the processes remain far from clear, the world is in the midst of a considerable shifting of rules and processes that derived from the peace of Westphalia (1648).Th ese changes will require further modifi cation of our analysis of sovereignty.
We argue that the eff orts of indigenous groups, as individual groups and as collectivities, are part and parcel of these changes and will play a signifi cant role in them-a role that cannot be ignored.Th is is because most indigenous peoples represent an alternative to capitalist accumulation (we pointedly do not mean Marx' s primitive communism, but a literal and real distributive political-economy) that by its very nature poses a perplexing problem, if not a fundamental challenge, to formal state sovereignty.Even as the dialectic outlined above plays out in terms of confl icts between states, indigenous peoples resist from outside the system, often while forced to enact political solutions within individual state structures and regimes.
Th e United States arguably has the most well-developed and codifi ed relationship with its indigenous peoples, "Indians" who have survived wars and conquest under the treaty system, with Canada following closely over the last two hundred years.Some analysts argue that the Canadians have surpassed the U.S. by recognizing the oral traditions of their "First Nations" (Perry 1996).While nearly all colonial systems conducted forms of genocide, extending over a fi ve hundred year period well into the nineteenth century, most did not develop treaty based legal systems, but many in Central and South America incorporated American Indian peoples into systems of racial subordination, segregation and partial assimilation as minority groups.
As the state system moved throughout its violent growth and development, it utilized two important concepts in its expansion over the western hemisphere, the Doctrine of Discovery and the Princes Rights to Conquest (Deloria and Lytle 1984;Wilkins 1997Wilkins , 2002;;Fenelon 1997;Deloria and Wilkins 1999).Th ese colonial to Indian relationships were at fi rst with very strong Native Nations, including the early U.S. Some were predicated on treaties and various "non-intercourse" acts, meant to contain and control indigenous peoples with a state actor in the expanding world-system.Within the United States such relationships were known as "tribal sovereignty" for those indigenous peoples surviving the conquest eras, and being able to demonstrate political presence over the next two hundred years.
What then evolved in the United States was a complex set of doubledup Dual Sovereignty relationships (Fenelon 2002) with Federal sovereignty supreme, fi rst with 13 and later up to 50 individual states' sovereignty, along with the contested notions of tribal sovereignty.Th e newly developing nation-states of the western hemisphere, including the United States, believed they could extinguish tribal claims to sovereignty at a later date.Th at has not proven to be the case.However, indigenous resistance to sovereign and capitalist domination has taken on many forms, which generally relate to hegemonic systems in their classic world-systems typologies.
In reviewing the many examples and cases of indigenous peoples in the western hemisphere, we have observed that there is a relationship between the legacy Th omas D. Hall & James V. Fenelon 176 The Futures of Indigenous Peoples 177 • Nature of any autonomous relations over political, economic and cultural realms of social life, again with states and hegemonic systems; • Status as "minority" peoples relative to cultural domination and claims to differential treatment, again within nation-states and hegemonic systems.Th e eff ects of hegemonic cycles in core areas are diff erent than those in peripheral areas.Th ey are mediated through cycles of nationalism and nationbuilding and also are part of the larger tributary to capitalist shift.Survival is also highly problematic, especially in the contemporary world-system (Hall 1987;Carlson 2001).We elaborate on applications to Table 1 later.
In Table 2, "Eleven Indigenous Societies in Comparative World-Systems Analysis" we identify eleven indigenous peoples from the western hemisphere and suggest levels of domination, current status, and world-system position.Based on earlier work (Hall andFenelon 2000, 2003), we argue that these cases represent the legacy of systematic domination and resulting socio-political status of colonized and conquered societies.Th ese historical and contemporary sociopolitical positions in the world system are tightly connected to hegemonic system decline, discussed on a case-by-case basis.
Until two decades ago when the Canadian courts and political processes gave more credence to both historical treaty rights and contemporary laws concerning separatist sovereignty, the Mohawk of Canada (referred to now as a "First Nation") have been relegated to a subsumed and segregated reserve status following the U.S. policy treatment.During their three or four hundred years of cultural domination, they experienced the full range of relationships, including an exchange of gunfi re with the military as late as the 1990' s.Th e Mohawk exist under diff erent laws but similar status on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border, and thus make a fascinating case of transnational historical ethnicity divided by artifi cial political borders imposed on them by the dominant groups.
Th e Lakota (Sioux) represent about two hundred years of confl icts ranging from war, (regionally until 1890 and on smaller scales well into the 1970' s)to formal treaty-making with the United States in spectacular negotiations clearly and primarily revolving around claims to sovereignty and control over land (see Plate 1).Th e Lakota were forcefully broken up into six diff erent reservation groups only roughly conforming to tribal relationships and without recognition of the 1868 treaty lands or rights.Recently, anti-hegemonic social movements, from the 1960' s have brought these agreements, broken by the United States on multiple occasions, back to the table, and the courts.
Th e Cherokee were militarily removed under genocidal conditions by the U.S. military; this move was orchestrated by President Jackson in direct opposi- of systemic domination type, individual socio-political statuses (tribe/nation/ minority-group) and their contemporary socio-political position in the worldsystem (especially as that may be connected to any hegemonic system decline, presented in Table 2).Th ese relationships may be fairly tightly circumscribed within the Americas, although it is speculative as to how strongly they may be held with various indigenous peoples in other parts of the world, with diff ering histories and political systems.
Th is is illustrated in Table 1, where we identify six levels of indigenous survival and resistance, within hegemonic state systems.Th e key concerns arise in the aforesaid relationships between systemic domination (historically located as a "legacy"), socio-political statuses (individually noted in each system by its own nomenclature) and contemporary socio-political position (discussed earlier as within the world-system of states, perhaps as "third world" and "industrialized" or "fi rst" world).Th ese levels include three primary distinctions: • Presence or absence of sovereignty claims by indigenous peoples and recognition by states within the existing hegemonic systems; The Futures of Indigenous Peoples 179 tion to Supreme Court rulings and all legal and moral constraints of the time in respect to the Five Civilized Tribes, forcing what many analysts believe to be the single best example of a constitutional crisis, in that all three sovereigns were in play-federal, tribal, state-and all three divisions of the U.S. government were at odds, with raw power to remove Indian peoples winning out.Th e primary result was the United States ignoring its manufactured crisis over sovereignty, mainly for the purposes of expanding its realm of control and limiting Indian Country.Reservations boundaries (yellow) in North / South Dakota, United States of America.Outside the bounded areas, American Indians have no "special" rights as a group or class.Inside bounded areas, both non-Indians (whites) and "Indians" contest for territory, jurisdiction, rights, land claims and sovereignty issues.While "trust" status would seem to confer special protection, within the bounded areas, in fact that becomes something negotiated with dominant and elite groups, often as a matter of law.Therefore, weak as the bounds may appear, they are important in terms of maintaining an historical presence of cultural traditionalism and social difference.
Th omas D. Hall & James V. Fenelon 180 The Futures of Indigenous Peoples 181 Th e Puyallup make another good example of what starts out as another treaty-tribe (essentially over the environs of what is now Tacoma) and though driven out of existence, make a stunning comeback in the late twentieth century to reclaim portions, albeit small, of their earlier claims.Th e Pequot make an even more compelling story, though eliminated for over three hundred years before the creation of the U.S.A., receive formal recognition partially by Congressional fi at, and then build a legal anomaly entirely on sovereignty into a stunning economic success through Indian Gaming,.Wampanoag people represent the fl ip side of that story, from once great nations fi rst supporting and then warring with English colonists, and then only getting a limited partial recognition through the court system, with little claims and only nominal sovereignty.
Th e Yaqui complete the United States examples, straddling the border with Mexico, sometimes warring with both countries, and ultimately getting a forced recognition, although growing substantially in the last two decades in terms of its territorial claim.Mexico, although historically an assimilative nation toward indigenous peoples, treated most of their "Indians" with segregated and discriminatory repression.Th e Tarahumara peoples, (Chihuahua) having often diffi cult relationships within the ejido system of rural land tenure, represent nation-state control over these bounded peoples.
Further to the south, and into Guatemala, Mayan descent Indian peoples in Chiapas, Mexico, represent combined armed and socio-political resistance to U.S.-led globalization, stating their struggle has been for "500 years" and is against transnational capitalism, hemispheric hegemony, and the repression of the peasant Indian for economic profi ts.Primarily with sovereignty and claims to the land as its basis, revolutionary struggle has linked with indigenous resistance and has percolated over hundreds of years under various regimes and economic domination.Legal, socio-economic, and cultural factors drove mountain indigenous peoples to use arms, illustrating how world-systems shape micro-economic relations, especially when hegemonic decline changes their positions and the activities of dominating elites.
Th e Miskito in Nicaragua perversely show these contentions in a reverse, namely, that a socialist armed revolutionary government also tries to impose conditions, boundaries, and in a late-stage forced removal, modernized conditions in the world-system, albeit not capitalist.Th e Sandinistas were, no doubt, responding to hegemonic forces that attempted to employ Miskito people in Honduras to support the Contras.However, the central concerns were against incursions over a limited but existing sovereignty, or in the Miskito case "autonomy" over their lands and socio-political life.While the capitalist systems tend to be more invasive of both cultural and political forms of autonomy, socialist systems are also attempting to exercise their sovereignty over societies, and therefore over indigenous peoples, making it incumbent on them to resist the corrosive eff ects of dominating systems.When hegemonic systems are in decline, these patterns become more apparent.
Reacting to an artifi cially imposed state political border with real eff ect, the Yanomami people in Venezuela demonstrate similar issues of an "internal colonialism" spreading out as an arm of a predatory economic system, markedly in Brazil, where it is mostly genocidal.Venezuela, on the other hand, has developed bounded reserve areas, similar to North American patterns, with limited protections but a still invasive market economy with trading posts and timber companies.Gold mines and mineral companies operate freely in Brazilian economic expansion, building peripheries out of Yanomami land where they cannot even be a minority group.Hegemonic decline seems to hasten these activities, and put reserved lands and laws in Venezuela into contention, over sovereignty or limited autonomy.Th is has been contentious since the IMF accords infl uenced Amazon development strategies.
Th e Quechuan people in Ecuador, and in a more complicated set of relationships in Peru, maintain a sizable demographic presence that at times must be taken into consideration.For example, in the recent elections followed by a near military coup, indigenous groups were key to swinging political parties behind one side or another.However, once the immediate objective, always associated with political machinations connected in some manner or form with natural resource extraction, has been achieved, defeated, or no longer matters, the Quechuan peoples are subsumed into the general population again.Separatists' movements, as in Peru, Venezuela and Colombia with diff erent tribal groups, attempt to make short-lived coalitions similar to the above dominant groups operating as nation-states.
Finally, the Native Hawaiians, who have achieved limited sovereignty and in one case territorial autonomy through the practice of legal and political recognition.In this case, we also observe that states believe the international system of trade forces them to recognize minority separatist groups with documented claims, such as a treaty or formal agreement.Ironically, core countries such as the United States, fi nd themselves no longer able to forcefully eliminate or assimilate indigenous peoples undergoing incorporation processes, instead they enter into negotiations that abide by previous contractual or treaty-like rules, similar to the contracts of international trade and economic development.
What remains to be sorted out is how these patterns are shaped and aff ected by changes in the hegemonic cycle.A key component to this survival is the degree of autonomy or sovereignty.As we noted above and in Table 1, sovereignty is a complex legal-political relationship.
When systems are in hegemonic decline, there are opportunities to take the The Futures of Indigenous Peoples 183 relationships described above, primarily of sovereignty/autonomy with a nationstate in a world system governed by international laws and economic agreements upon which capitalism relies, and force (or tease out) new political relationships more advantageous to indigenous peoples.However, states may also contract and respond with greater oppression toward indigenous peoples if they will upset an existing status quo, or simply to nail down those parts of their society under their total control.When indigenous peoples straddle borders these issues become more acute, depending on the particular states involved and the relative strength of the region.Th us hegemonic decline provides both potential opportunities and sometimes grave threats for indigenous groups.
In Table 1 six levels of indigenous survival were identifi ed with respect to sovereignty, autonomy, and minority status.Table 1 further analyzes three distinct social spheres of domination-political, economic, and cultural.Levels 1 and 2 (sovereignty is formally recognized or at least legally contested) seem to off er the greatest opportunity during times of hegemonic decline, with some caveats.Th e primary observation herein is that the nation-states appear to be core countries or their close affi liates who benefi t from the international system of trade and economic dominance.Another factor seems to be that existing treaties or legal documents can be put into play.Th e Mohawk, Lakota, Cherokee, Puyallup, Pequot, perhaps Yaqui, and Native Hawaiian cases appear to be operating in all three spheres on these levels.
Levels 3 and 4 (with autonomy in two or more of the social spheres bounded, or at least when undergoing formal contestation) are both fraught with peril and are loaded with opportunity.Th ese peoples are much more likely to be involved in an armed struggle, when assets such as land and mineral rights, or labor and trade rights, are being determined by an internal struggle that is characterized by extreme domination.Th ey often break laws and mores of the society itself.Levels of development and position in the global economy of the particular nation-state, regionally defi ned, seems to also have an aff ect, with poorer countries much more likely to employ military forces against their indigenous peoples.Th e Mayan and the Miskito cases appear to be on these levels, with high degrees of violent confl ict.
Because a "minority status" is dependent on the dominant policies of the state, levels 5 and 6 hold the most dangerous possibilities for indigenous groups, unless they can engineer movement to the higher levels by gaining some form of autonomy or even limited sovereignty.(Miskito against the Sandinistas in the 1980' s achieved this).Historically, being forced into an oppressive minority status was a common feature in the European expansion over the western hemisphere, but currently, less developed or poorer countries are most likely to oppress their indigenous peoples through such defi nition, or a complete subordination of political, economic and cultural rights.Among the cases we consider in this analysis, the Yanomami and Quechuan peoples appear to be on this level, and are thus in highly vulnerable positions.
Th is brief discussion suggests that the consequences of degree of sovereignty can diff er in political, economic, and cultural spheres.Obviously, these three areas overlap and interact.We further question whether and to what degree these various eff ects are diff erent in core, peripheral, or semiperipheral regions.While it will take further research to confi rm this, we also suggest that core states have developed highly codifi ed laws relative to the nation-state system (witness the UN' s International Peoples Working Group [IPWG], http://www.un.org/partners/civil_society/m-indig.htm;see too Biolsi 1995Biolsi , 2001) ) that they must acknowledge on some level.Th us, they are more likely to off er recognition of some form of autonomy or sovereignty.However, in peripheral states, the reverse appears to be the case.Indeed, extralegal and state violence (direct or indirect) is much more common.
While the relations are not entirely clear, this evidence supports an observation that a pattern of relationships does appear, suggesting that a global historical survey will be necessary to tease out the nuances of the relations among indigenous survival, indigenous movements, hegemony, and world-system position.We suspect that these relations are quite sensitive to world-system time.Th at is, location in a declining hegemon in the late 18th century is very diff erent from location in a declining hegemon in the late 20th or early 21st century.
With all these suggestive fi ndings we draw some provisional conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS: LESSONS FOR THE TWENTYFIRST CENTURY
What then can we learn about resistance to globalization from this examination of the survival of indigenous peoples?First and foremost, we must recognize that the issues of resistance and survival are immensely complex.As both the world-system, and possibly its underlying logic, continue to evolve, so too do its various constituent units.Here we confront the age old conundrum of-if something is changing, is it still "the same thing?"When does adaptation and change shift from quantitative adjustment to qualitative diff erence?Th e key issue seems to be persistence of forms of social organization that are non capitalistic, or that reject capitalism, development, or modernization explicitly.
Will indigenous peoples continue to be such alternatives?If they are a threat, we can expect that pressures on them to change or to assimilate will mount.
Based on what has already happened, some or many will succumb.But equally important, we might expect some to continue to survive.Th is is most likely when they exist as encapsulated enclaves somehow walled off , or at least partially sepa-destroy them.Th e most successful, however, are not likely to be frontal attacks, but more invidious erosions via media exposure, increasing dependence on the products of capitalism, and incremental increases in participation in the global economy.
Th is is why the EZLN may be so prophetic.It is addressing such forces directly.Th us far, it has succeeded in gaining converts and fellow travelers among the middle classes of the world, and linking with other anti-globalization forces.Indeed, as Plate 2 indicates, they may be moving into a position of global leadership in resisting globalization.Th e banner, "todos somos indos del mundo" [we are all Indians of the world] seeks to build solidarity with others on the basis of recognition that all individuals are being crushed by global capitalism.
Whether this, or any other movement will succeed remains unknown.Predictions of the imminent demise of capitalism are only slightly less frequent than predictions about the impending demise of indigenous peoples.Both are still here.If one takes a short-run view, over the era of capitalist domination of the last few centuries, evidence would suggest capitalism will win in the end.If, however, one takes a very long-run view, many types of indigenous organizations have withstood assaults of states, not for centuries, but millennia.Hence, Th omas D. Hall & James V. Fenelon 184 The Futures of Indigenous Peoples 185 rated from global capitalism.To the extent that human rights remain key issues for global middle classes, the likelihood of any complete destruction of indigenous peoples is lessened.Furthermore, the 9-11 inspired war on terrorism, which already has become the rationale of choice for a large number of actions that have little or no connection with terrorism, may indeed foreshadow a resurgence of "manifest destiny" on a global scale (Wickham 2002).
It is tempting to dismiss this as a minority issue.Indigenous peoples are some 350 millions, approximately 5 of the world' s population.But here we should take note of both biological and sociocultural evolutionary processes (Sanderson 1990).New forms typically evolve from precisely such "minority" populations.Note that even in fi ctionalized accounts, change is seen to come from small groups (Wagar 1999).Th e array of surviving indigenous populations is a range of alternatives to capitalism.Furthermore, it is a range that is far broader than the narrow range of oppositions that have grown up inside the capitalist worldsystem, which are, more often than not, either negations of one or another aspect of capitalism, or "kinder, gentler" redistributions of it resources.Indigenous peoples present a panoply of alternatives.
In this paper we have drawn heavily on examples and experience in North America.While much of the resistance and survival discussion is similar for indigenous peoples globally, experiences of colonization, or sometimes simple nationalization projects, for other indigenous peoples varies widely.For instance: the Warli people in India have only recently become recognized as colonization eff ects of England are only now being transformed; the Kurds in Iraq, Turkey and Iran have contended with colonization and constructed state structures by European powers; and so on the complexities go, whether discussing the Saami in Scandinavia, the Maori in New Zealand, Iban in Sarawak, Malaysia, or perhaps even the Pashtun in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Five hundred years of experience with colonization followed by nationalization projects in the western hemisphere, as complex and diverse as they are, remain somewhat more open to analysis because of the shared parts of their experiences, than attempting to describe indigenous peoples globally.Nonetheless, it is our contention that very similar processes occur wherever globalization meets resistance by indigenous peoples.We readily acknowledge that many more detailed studies are needed to delineate the entire range of alternatives and resistances that indigenous peoples present.Our key conclusion here is that these resistances are multiple.Th e EZLN is one form of resistance to globalization.Th ere are many more in North America, in Central and South America, Australia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, Europe, and East Asia.All need to be studied more fully.
It is also reasonable to expect that to the degree that indigenous peoples do succeed in resisting capitalism, they will call down stronger attempts to change or the evidence would suggest indigenous peoples will survive.If one looks further into the rise of the capitalist world-system, seeing capitalism coming to dominate from little pockets scattered here and there for millennia, and recognizes that modern capitalism is an amalgam of older forms and newer forms, then one might expect that whatever the world-system transforms into will be built on the various models that already exist.And here, clearly, indigenous peoples represent the widest range of alternatives, and continuously adapting forms from which to build a more inclusive new world.Now we can return to the issue of the impacts of recent events-the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Iraq war, and especially the attacks on 9-11.Th e preceding analysis and discussion suggests that to ask about the impacts of these events is to ask the wrong question.Why should such events, spectacular though they have been, impact these centuries, and even millennia long processes?At most we would expect slight perturbations in a trajectory of resistance, along the lines of those documented by Podobnik (2002).Our argument follows that of Dunaway (2003a) and Wallerstein (2003) that such events are part and parcel of the normal processes of capitalist dynamics.Here we are seeing the fruits of globalization beginning to ripen.As Clark (2002) argues, the intensifi cation, the speeding up, the increasing interconnectedness of global capitalism makes a large variety of "normal accidents" more, not less, likely.Indeed, precisely because they so often try to exist outside the system, many indigenous groups may be better insulated from such "normal accidents" than members of societies fully integrated into the capitalist world-system.Furthermore, as ethnic confl ict has become more costly to the system, there may well be less pressure to integrate indigenous peoples more fully into the capitalist world-system.Indeed, to the degree that global elites increasingly attend to the rising risk of "normal accidents" they may pay even less attention to indigenous peoples.If so, the impact of 9-11 and other such recent events may actually enhance the probability of their continued survival.
Th ere are many contingencies in the foregoing analysis.Depending how they become manifest in concrete social terms, our guess and predictions will of necessity need modifi cation.In the scale of centuries and millennia, it is far too soon to draw any fi rm conclusions on the impacts of these recent events.

Table 1 -Levels and Types of Indigenous Survival within Hegemonic Nation- State Systems Level 1: Sovereignty Recognized -SR
Political -systems recognized by nation-state and even by hegemonic regimes Economic -limited or in some cases full control over internal institutions Cultural -intact or assimilated, no longer under strict cultural domination Level 5: Minority status Defined -MD Political -no boundaries, relations defined by nation-state / hegemonic regimes Economic -trade, land tenure, and property under total dominant group policies Cultural -dominated, suppressed or secreted, (language policy, group property) Level 6: Minority status Subsumed -MS Political -no separate legal status, as defined by nation-state / hegemonic regimes Economic -trade, land tenure, property dominated by elites & nation-state law Cultural -distorted, suppressed or secreted, (discriminatory systems encouraged) Th omas D. Hall & James V. Fenelon  178