Abstract
We examined how autochthony belief (entitlements from first arrival) and investment belief (entitlements from working the land) guide attitudes towards territorial compensation of Indigenous groups in settler societies. We expected autochthony and investment beliefs to be respectively related to more and less territorial compensation, via higher and lower perceptions of Indigenous ownership. We tested this in Chile among non-Indigenous Chileans and Indigenous Mapuche. In Study 1 among non-Indigenous Chilean students (N = 611) we found that autochthony belief was related to a greater support for territorial compensation of the first inhabitants, the Mapuche, whereas investment belief was related to a lesser support for territorial compensation. In Study 2 we contrasted self-identified non-Indigenous Chileans (N = 121) with self-identified Indigenous Mapuche (N = 226) and found that for both groups autochthony belief was related to greater support for territorial compensation via higher recognition of Indigenous territorial ownership. Interestingly, for non-Indigenous Chileans, investment belief was related to less willingness to compensate, whereas for Mapuche it was related to more claims for compensation via stronger perceptions of Indigenous ownership. Together, these findings show that endorsement of autochthony belief is an argument that validates Indigenous ownership among both groups, whereas different dimensions of the investment belief can be used by both groups to claim more positive outcomes for their own in-group. Availability of data and material & Code availability: The data and analysis code are publicly available at https://osf.io/gw96d/
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 236-253 |
Number of pages | 18 |
Journal | International Journal of Intercultural Relations |
Volume | 85 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Nov 2021 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:This paper is the result of an international academic collaboration made possible through funding by the European Research Council and the Chilean National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT). We furthermore acknowledge the support of a CONICYT grant from the Chilean Ministry of Education ( ANID/FONDAP/15130009 ) during the preparation of this manuscript.
Funding Information:
This work was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement No 715842 ) awarded to the third author, and by two postdoctoral grants from the Chilean National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research CONICYT ( CONICYT-FONDECYT/POSDOCTORADO/3160352 and CONICYT-FONDECYT/POSDOCTORADO/3170569 ) awarded to the second and fourth author respectively.
Funding Information:
This work was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement No 715842) awarded to the third author, and by two postdoctoral grants from the Chilean National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research CONICYT (CONICYT-FONDECYT/POSDOCTORADO/3160352 and CONICYT-FONDECYT/POSDOCTORADO/3170569) awarded to the second and fourth author respectively.This paper is the result of an international academic collaboration made possible through funding by the European Research Council and the Chilean National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT). We furthermore acknowledge the support of a CONICYT grant from the Chilean Ministry of Education (ANID/FONDAP/15130009) during the preparation of this manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors
Keywords
- Autochthony
- Chile
- Compensation
- Indigenous peoples
- Investment
- Territorial ownership