1. and ongoing reminder (see, e.g., Watts2000). Moreover,
2. serves, and so forth (Hodgson2001; Zerner 2000). Nonetheless, in recent years some Western environmentalists have linked issues of biological diversity to cultural diversity and promoted particular images of indigenous peoples, practices, and knowledge to justify and publicize their campaigns (see, e.g., Brosius 1997a, 1997b; Conklin 1997; Conklin and Graham 1995). In effect, the relationship between culture and nature has been inverted as representations of indigenous peoples have been transformed from being the "destroyers" of nature to the "protectors" of biodiversity and practitioners of environmental "sustainability." The resulting alliances between some indigenous groups and certain environmental organizations (who, of course, are quite diverse in their agendas, strategies, and goals) have ranged from mutually beneficial to patronizing, debilitating, and tense (cf. Turner 1999).
3. terventions and agendas (Escobar1995; Ferguson 1990;
4. Hodgson2001). Indigenous peoples often hold alternative
5. suggest that there are important differences in the context, meaning, and use of the concept in the Americas and Africa, differences that have had significant consequences for the struggles of indigenous rights movement in these regions. Given the long history of settler colonialism in the Americas (as in Australia and New Zealand), indigenous groups have been able to more clearly meet the criteria of territorial precedence, historical continuity, and cultural difference set forth in the various international legal definitions. Thus, while some groups are still fighting for state recognition of their status as indigenous (e.g., Field1999), many have been able to establish political recognition and focus their efforts on protecting their territories and resources and demanding rights to control their lives and livelihoods.16In the United States, Brazil, Ecuador, and other countries, indigenous peoples, through a long