Working on the short essay provided me with significant insight into the direction I want to take my broader project. One of the most valuable aspects of the process was engaging directly with Comanche Nation documents, particularly those relating to membership and consultation in national projects, and comparing these to international frameworks such as United Nations definitions of indigeneity.
This comparison revealed a striking imbalance. While global institutions like the UN position themselves as authorities in defining indigeneity, they often do so through frameworks that emphasize marginalization and historical subordination. In contrast, Indigenous-led documents foreground governance, procedural integrity, and active political participation. Seeing these side by side made it clear that indigeneity is not just being described differently it is being constructed differently depending on who is doing the defining.
Interestingly, when discussing my project with classmates and friends, many were familiar with major international organisations like the UN, but far fewer were aware of Indigenous-run institutions or governance structures. This gap in awareness mirrors the imbalance I encountered in the research itself. Prior to this project, I also had limited exposure to these Indigenous-led frameworks, which further highlights how dominant narratives shape both academic and public understanding.
This has pushed me to more explicitly centre the question of agency in my project: who gets to define indigeneity on the global stage? Is it large international organisations, or Indigenous nations themselves? Moving forward, I want to dedicate a section of my project to this tension, drawing more heavily on Indigenous-authored sources, community documentation, and, if possible, interviews. This will allow me to ground my analysis more firmly in Indigenous perspectives rather than relying predominantly on external interpretations.