Page 24 - Pelc, Stanko, ed., 2015. Spatial, social and economic factors of marginalization in the changing global context. Koper, University of Primorska Press.
P. 24
tial, social, and economic factors of marginalization in the changing global context 22 We address the development of indigenous concepts at both in-
ternational and local levels, focusing on land aspects. First, we ex-
amine the development of indigeneity in international law includ-
ing various UN forums that promoted the concept toward the final
Declaration. Second, we reveal the perspectives provided by sev-
eral states upon their vote on the UNDRIP and what stands be-
hind them. Third, we discuss Israel’s position toward the indigenous
question. And forth we consider future trends and possible applica-
tions of the indigenous discourse to European States.
Through our study we highlight dilemmas regarding definitions, sov-
ereignty, and implementation with special emphasize on land rights.
We relate to the nebulous nature of the definitions of indigeneity,
the common limitation of this label to countries affected by West-
ern colonialism from the 15th-16th century onwards, to the am-
bivalent attitude and the denial by some countries [such as China,
India, United Kingdom, Turkey and others], the existence of indige-
nous peoples within their boundaries, and to the political use of in-
digeneity to achieve other goals. Tracing the progress and develop-
ments of the concept of indigeneity sheds light on how the growth
of the indigenous discourse has led to multiple levels of indigenous
claims that create increasingly complex and politicized situations.
Aspects of Roma community living in urban ecosystem:
verdict “marginalization”?
Dr. Gina Raluca Kerkmann
A.İ.Ç.Ü. Faculty of Art and Science
grkerkmann@agri.edu.tr
Romania, gipsy, marginalization.
The gipsy community from Romania counted 1.85 million persons
in 2011 (people declared of gipsy origin) that means 3.2% of coun-
try population, with an increase tendency. From this point of view
it is the second biggest minority from Romania, after the Hungari-
an community; 4.9% of them live in the central region of the coun-
try (Bucharest and and the neighbouring urban centres from Ilfov
County); this percent represents an argument for their migration
from rural to urban zones to increase their opportunity of earning
a higher income.
ternational and local levels, focusing on land aspects. First, we ex-
amine the development of indigeneity in international law includ-
ing various UN forums that promoted the concept toward the final
Declaration. Second, we reveal the perspectives provided by sev-
eral states upon their vote on the UNDRIP and what stands be-
hind them. Third, we discuss Israel’s position toward the indigenous
question. And forth we consider future trends and possible applica-
tions of the indigenous discourse to European States.
Through our study we highlight dilemmas regarding definitions, sov-
ereignty, and implementation with special emphasize on land rights.
We relate to the nebulous nature of the definitions of indigeneity,
the common limitation of this label to countries affected by West-
ern colonialism from the 15th-16th century onwards, to the am-
bivalent attitude and the denial by some countries [such as China,
India, United Kingdom, Turkey and others], the existence of indige-
nous peoples within their boundaries, and to the political use of in-
digeneity to achieve other goals. Tracing the progress and develop-
ments of the concept of indigeneity sheds light on how the growth
of the indigenous discourse has led to multiple levels of indigenous
claims that create increasingly complex and politicized situations.
Aspects of Roma community living in urban ecosystem:
verdict “marginalization”?
Dr. Gina Raluca Kerkmann
A.İ.Ç.Ü. Faculty of Art and Science
grkerkmann@agri.edu.tr
Romania, gipsy, marginalization.
The gipsy community from Romania counted 1.85 million persons
in 2011 (people declared of gipsy origin) that means 3.2% of coun-
try population, with an increase tendency. From this point of view
it is the second biggest minority from Romania, after the Hungari-
an community; 4.9% of them live in the central region of the coun-
try (Bucharest and and the neighbouring urban centres from Ilfov
County); this percent represents an argument for their migration
from rural to urban zones to increase their opportunity of earning
a higher income.
