How did slavery and colonialism shape claims to indigeneity among African diaspora groups?
Executive summary
Slavery and colonialism reshaped how African-descended peoples and scholars talk about indigeneity by producing overlapping but contested vocabularies of homeland, displacement, and belonging — creating both claims to indigenous status (e.g., Afro‑Indigenous identity, maroon communities, Black Indigeneity) and sharp disciplinary distinctions that often exclude African diasporans from settler‑Indigenous frameworks [1] [2]. Scholarship shows two dominant pressures: (a) colonial classification and dispossession that forced new diasporic identities and political projects, and (b) contemporary efforts by some Black communities to claim place-based or cultural indigeneity while others and some Indigenous rights frameworks treat African diasporans as distinct from Indigenous peoples [1] [2].
1. Colonial classification created the conditions for “diaspora” claims and complicated indigeneity
European colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade severed millions from continental homelands and inserted them into plantation and settler societies; scholars frame those historical ruptures as producing “different sets of relations between ‘homeland’ and identity” that distinguish diaspora from indigeneity [1]. Colonial governance and racial classification systems also created categories (slave, freedman, settler) that reconfigured who could claim continuity with a specific land or nation, forcing African‑descended peoples to develop alternative forms of belonging beyond territorial indigeneity [1].
2. Black Indigeneity: a scholarly and political move to reclaim rootedness
A growing literature and activist language — summarized under “Black Indigeneity” — describes how African‑descended people in places like the United States and the Pacific construct belonging tied to place, maroon traditions, and cultural continuities with Africa as responses to slavery and colonialism [2]. Proponents argue this analytic helps account for Afro‑Indigenous and maroonic practices that compose belonging and freedom, and for diasporic attempts to create sovereign selves in the face of dispossession [2].
3. Tensions between diasporic indigeneity and Indigenous rights frameworks
Several sources note an explicit tension: mainstream Indigenous rights frameworks and Indigenous Studies often exclude post‑colonial African identities from “indigeneity,” treating them as diasporic rather than Indigenous — a distinction that preserves different legal and political claims [2] [1]. The result is contested status for African diasporans who assert land‑ or nation‑rooted belonging: some scholarship pushes for analytic expansion, while others caution against erasing settler colonial histories and Indigenous sovereignty [2] [1].
4. Maroon and local place‑based practices as hybrid claims to indigeneity
Histories of maroon communities, creolized cultures, and Afro‑Indigenous families complicate binary categories: they show how escaped enslaved people and their descendants forged territorial claims, governance forms, and cultural traditions that are simultaneously diasporic and locally rooted [2] [1]. Scholars point to these formations as examples of African diasporans producing place‑based belonging that resembles aspects of indigeneity without fitting neatly into established legal or scholarly categories [2].
5. Academic fields actively debating taxonomy and political stakes
University programs and calls for scholarship link race, colonialism, and diaspora studies to debates about indigeneity, settler colonialism, and decolonization — indicating institutional energy behind rethinking definitions and stakes [3] [4] [5]. Conferences and edited volumes take up how diaspora’s “expiration” or persistence intersects with settler colonial relations and how different regions (e.g., Pacific, North America, Taiwan) generate distinct articulations of diasporic indigeneity [5] [6].
6. Political implications: reparations, sovereignty, and who gets recognized
Contemporary political projects emerging from the legacies of slavery and colonialism — from Pan‑African reparatory conferences to claims for self‑determination — demonstrate that indigeneity debates have real policy consequences: recognition, land claims, and reparations all hinge on whether communities are categorized as Indigenous, diasporic, or both [7] [8]. These institutional and legal distinctions shape access to resources and international fora where historical injustices are addressed [8] [7].
7. Limitations in current reporting and where questions remain
Available sources sketch theoretical debates and institutional activity but do not provide unified legal criteria or comprehensive case studies comparing how courts, states, and Indigenous nations respond to specific African diaspora indigeneity claims — available sources do not mention systematic comparative legal outcomes or definitive policy rulings across jurisdictions (not found in current reporting). The literature calls for more empirical work on local maroon land claims, Afro‑Indigenous governance, and how Indigenous rights instruments (e.g., DRIP) are applied or contested in practice [2] [1].
Conclusion: Slavery and colonialism forced African‑descended peoples into complex positionalities that gave rise to diasporic claims of rootedness and new forms of “indigeneity,” even as scholarly and legal frameworks often separate diasporic Black identities from Indigenous status. That split is itself a product of colonial history and power; resolving it requires both careful historical work and political negotiation about recognition, sovereignty, and reparative justice [1] [2] [8].