The Rosetta Project created this map to highlight the near-extinct languages in Africa and the Americas. They are working to update the map to include the entire world.

View Larger Map

Click below to view UNESCO’s interactive map of endangered languages around the world:

The blog Repeating Islands writes about Berbice Dutch, a language spoken in Guyana that was recently declared extinct:

Berbice Dutch is a mixture of the Zeeland dialect of Dutch, the local Arawak Indian language, and Ijo, which was spoken by slaves from Nigeria… The last speakers of this language were found in the 1970s by Ian Robertson, living on the upper reaches of the Berbice River in and around the area of the Wiruni Creek. The last known Berbice Dutch Creole speaker was Bertha Bell, who was 103 years old when last interviewed by Ian Robertson and a UWI linguistics research team in March, 2004. She died in 2005.

Linguist Hubert Devonish explains the dying language and interviews the last speaker of Berbice Dutch:

Listen to a BBC report on Boa Sr, the last speaker of the Bo language, which was spoken by the Bo tribe of the Andaman islands for up to 65,000 years.

The death of an 85-year-old woman in the Andaman islands, part of India but physically closer to Indonesia, has marked the death of an entire language:

As we have seen elsewhere, the remnants of an ancient civilization are being threatened by the encroachment of the modern world.

In Australia, as Deutsche Welle reports, a history written in the land is in danger of being erased.

An indigenous rights protest. Photo: Flickr user KeithBacongo

In 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, laying out the fundamental rights of the more than 370 million indigenous people living throughout the world.

The Declaration’s main goals are to protect the traditional lands of indigenous communities, as well as their right to self-government and control over natural resources. It also aims to safeguard cultural independence.

The United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia — the four English-speaking nations with significant indigenous populations — were the only countries to vote against the Declaration. Recently, Australia’s new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd reversed this decision and signed the document.

During Worldfocus’ series on Indigenous Cultures, we have shown the severe threats facing native communities across the world. For more on the issue, Jamie Macfarlane interviewed Renee Davis and Tiffany Waters, research associates at the Center for World Indigenous Studies.

Worldfocus: Has the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People made a meaningful difference to the lives of indigenous communities around the globe?

Davis: The Declaration holds meaning in setting a standard of Indigenous sovereignty over their lands and resources and to self determination. However, at this point, the Declaration holds more meaning as a standard to be embraced than a legally enforceable document.

Worldfocus: Why do the United States, Canada and New Zealand refuse to sign the Declaration?

Davis: While Australia has recently overturned their opposition to the Declaration, the United States of America, Canada and New Zealand say they oppose the Declaration for various reasons.

Much of the opposition from the US, Canada, and New Zealand surrounds Articles 3 and 26, in which the inherent right to self-determination and control over Indigenous resources and lands are recognized, and Article 32, in which it is required that the State Government obtain an Indigenous peoples “free and informed consent” before exploiting resources or lands that affect Indigenous peoples.

One analyst, Ronald Kakungulu (2009), has suggested that there is a fundamental reason for opposition that joins these three states: “They have a history of using the now discredited doctrines of discovery and terra nullius (empty land) to grab indigenous people’s lands.”

Worldfocus: How does the treatment of Native Americans in the United States compare to the treatment of indigenous peoples in other English-speaking nations?

Davis: We can’t answer in a “better/worse than” way. Structurally, these States have similar relationships with their indigenous populations: treaties, trust relationships, etc. But there is something that does stand out. Compared to the other English-speaking countries, American Indians have a much greater bureaucratic interface with the federal government, cultivated over the last 40 years of American tribes assuming more functions of the federal government in their own communities.

Worldfocus: Are there examples of Indigenous self-government that you see as models that could be introduced across the world?

Davis: We don’t see one broad model of indigenous self-government that could be applicable worldwide. With so many culturally diverse societies, we can’t expect there to be one single way in which self-government emerges.

A structure of self-governance has to come from within and be built on a peoples own place and culture specific foundations. Thus, we cannot point to one particular group and take them as an example of successful self-government to be applied worldwide.

However, we can look at what qualities and characteristics can facilitate an indigenous nation’s strength: it must build and assert its political authority, formulate its own policies, laws, regulations and standards, and have Indigenous and tribal leaders that can maintain political flexibility and agility in a constantly shifting and changing world.

- Jamie Macfarlane

We chose this story because it illustrates how the drive toward what is often called “progress” can threaten a traditional culture. The piece is also about how hunger for oil is jeopardizing this way of life.

Jonah Hull of Al Jazeera English reports on the Khanty people of northern Siberia.

Photo: US Mission Canada

Inuit are the indigenous inhabitants of an Arctic region that crosses Canada, Alaska, Russia and Greenland. In April 2009, Inuit came together from across the Arctic Circle and issued a declaration establishing their rights to self-determination.

In a leap forward for indigenous self-rule, in 1999 the Canadian government created an Inuit majority territory, Nunavut, meaning “our land” in the Inuit language. Covering 1.9 million square kilometers and home to 29,000 residents, most of them Indigenous, its decentralized government allows Inuit to take control of their own affairs.

Worldfocus spoke with Stephen Hendrie, the Director of Communications at Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Canada’s national Inuit organization based in Ottawa, about the issue.

Worldfocus: What has been the impact of the creation of the territory of Nunavut?

Hendrie: The creation of the Nunavut territory — the biggest jurisdiction in the Americas with an aboriginal majority — remains an inspiration.

The territory garnered international headlines when it changed the map of Canada on April 1, 1999 for the first time since 1949. People always look to the Nunavut territory as the place where most Inuit live in Canada. In fact less than 50% of Inuit live in Nunavut. The three other Inuit regions in Canada– Inuvialuit, Nunavik, and Nunatsiavut– have either established a regional government (Nunatsiavut), are on the verge of doing so (Nunavik), or continue to work on a form of one (Inuvialuit).

The 53 Inuit communities located in “Inuit Nunangat” (the region Inuit in Canada describe as the Inuit homeland located in the Inuvialuit Region of the NorthWest Territories, Nunavut, Nunavik in Northern Quebec and Nunatsiavut in Labrador) enjoy unique forms of power-sharing within Canada through the provisions of comprehensive land claim agreements (modern ‘treaties’). These agreements, which define power-sharing arrangements governing public administration and the ownership, use and management of natural resources, have Constitutional protection.

When you look at the picture overall, Inuit have achieved extraordinary advances within the Canadian political landscape, and that has been done in a peaceful manner over the course of the past 35-40 years.

The push for further advances continues, with key issues being economic development, overcoming a legacy of problems in relation to the core social services of health, education and housing, and the preservation of the Inuit language.

Worldfocus: How much is the traditional Inuit way of life changing in response to modern pressures?

Hendrie: What if this question were turned around? What if “Westerners” were surprised to learn that the Inuit perspective to this question is that the “Western” way of life is being adapted by Inuit in the service of preserving the traditional Inuit way of life? Inuit didn’t stop hunting when ski-doos were introduced. Inuit simply hunted more efficiently. Inuit don’t see an Internet dominated by English as merely a threat. Inuit are using the Internet to preserve language and culture. See isumatv.ca for an example of the internet in use as a tool for the preservation of Inuit language and culture.

Worldfocus: How would you compare the condition of Inuit in Canada with those in Alaska?

Hendrie: Inuit in Canada and Alaska face many similar challenges, such as the need to ensure adequate Inuit control over major non-renewable resource development projects, the need to overcome gaps in basic living conditions, the challenge of preserving language and culture, and combating the efforts by internationally organized animal rights extremists to undermine the livelihoods of hunting peoples everywhere.

Inuit in Canada and Alaska do live in larger societies with different Constitutions and political traditions, and these differences color Inuit realities and priorities in the two countries. For example, Canadian Inuit have access to universal public health insurance and a history of much greater access to public housing; Alaskan Inuit have demonstrated the high level of entrepreneurial initiative characteristic of American society in general.

- Jamie Macfarlane

The Nukak have been forced to abandon their traditional nomadic existence in the tropical jungle because of the conflict between the Colombian army and the rebel FARC movement, and now face the possibility of the complete extinction of their culture.

Our partner Al Jazeera English reports on the story from Colombia.
(View full post to see video)

Along with their proud heritage and striking landscapes, residents struggle with unemployment, poverty and cultural dislocation. Suicide rates among Inuit youth are ten times higher than the national average.

In the tiny Arctic town of Igloolik, where there are barely 1500 inhabitants, around 5 young adults commit suicide every year.

In response to this widespread despair among the young in Igloolik, the village launched several initiatives. A film company, Iglooklik Isuma Productions, went on to win the Camera d’Or prize at the Cannes Film Festival.

With the help of a Montreal acrobat, several young people also created a circus troupe called Artcirq that blends modern circus activities with traditional Inuit culture.

Filmmaker Linda Matchan, in association with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, is documenting these efforts in a project called Hope on Ice.

Artcirq has taken its performance all the way to the Olympics, performing in a Vancouver medal ceremony on February 21st.

Linda Matchan blogged this week from Vancouver about the large native presence at the Olympics:

The Aboriginal presence at the Olympics is conspicuous to anyone who watched the opening ceremonies on TV, which were dominated by four massive totem poles representing each of the host First Nations. The work of Aboriginal artists appear in every Olympic venue. The gold, silver and bronze medals feature West Coast aboriginal designs.

Not all Aboriginal people are buying this. As Joseph himself acknowledged, First Nations people experience an unemployment rate that is at least double of other Canadians. The suicide rate in Aboriginal communities is twice the national rate. Two out of three Aboriginal children living on reserves will not graduate from high school.

Members of an Olympic Resistance Movement have argued that the Olympics is merely window dressing. They say the money would have been better spent on remedying the after-effects of colonialism, such as homelessness among Aboriginals, many of whom live in Vancouver’s Downtown East Side known as the poorest postal code in Canada.

Canada’s Arctic Inuit people have many of the same social problems, though they have not been addressed so vocally at the Olympics (It is the source of some pride, though, that the official Olympic logo is an inukshuk, a traditional stone sculpture used by Canada’s Inuit people).

Mostly living in the northern island of Hokkaido, Ainu are believed to descend from people who lived in Japan as early as 13,000 years ago. Their culture is distinct from mainstream Japanese society.

In the 19th century, Japan banned the Ainu language, seized their land, and outlawed their hunting and religious practices. Today the Ainu language is almost completely extinct.

Just under 24,000 people identified themselves as Ainu, in a 2006 study by the Hokkaido prefectural government. However, many of those included were of mixed blood. Also, it is not known how many Ainu live outside Hokkaido.

In June 2008, Japan’s parliament passed a resolution that formally recognized the Ainu as an indigenous people with a distinct language, religion and culture. Today, the Ainu have their own cultural institutions and are working with the Japanese government to maintain their unique heritage.

Harry Fawcett of Al Jazeera English reports from Hokkaido on the struggle to save their way of life.

Global Voices blogger Scilla Alecci writes about the extinction of indigenous languages in Japan, including the Ainu language:

In February UNESCO presented the Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, giving an accurate and worrying description of the languages considered endangered (about 2,500). Among these eight belong to the Japanese archipelago. Not a big surprise if we think about the severe policies of linguistic and cultural assimilation carried out by the Japanese government until the end of the WW2, after completing the annexation during the 19th century of the Ryukyu reign (now Okinawa) and the island of Hokkaido inhabited by the Ainu people.

Scienceblogs.com contributor Razib Khan writes about the relationship between language and genes of near extinct people’s around the world:

This is a case where the preponderance of evidence seems to be that the Yayoi rice-culture bearers arrived from the continent and predominantly replaced the indigenous post-Jomon culture. The Ainu may be a residue of the Jomon natives, and a non-trivial, though minority, component of the Japanese ancestry can be traced back to the Jomon.

The Ainu Museum in Hokkaido explores the history of the Ainu people:

“Ainu” means “human.” The Ainu people regard things useful to them or beyond their control as “kamuy” (gods). In daily life, they prayed to and performed various ceremonies for the gods. These gods include: “nature” gods, such as of fire, water, wind and thunder; “animal” gods, such as of bears, foxes, spotted owls and grampuses; “plant” gods, such as of aconite, mushroom and mugwort; “object” gods, such as of boats and pots; and gods which protect houses, gods of mountains and gods of lakes. The word “Ainu” refers to the opposite of these gods.

The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History held an exhibition dedicated to exploring the ancient origin of the Ainu, their evolving relations with the Japanese, and the 20th century Ainu cultural renaissance.

An Aboriginal Australian dancer. Photo: PaddyNapper on Flickr

Worldfocus intern Jamie Macfarlane writes about the Australian government’s attempts to make amends for historical injustice to Aboriginal people.

“We apologize for the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians…”

In February 2008, newly elected Prime Minister Kevin Rudd made a historic move in offering a full and unreserved apology for Australia’s historic treatment of Aborigines.

But many Western countries have a deep unease about such apologies. Rudd’s predecessor, Prime Minister John Howard, would only describe his “regret,” and in the United States, no president has ever come close to publicly addressing the totality crimes inflicted on Native Americans.

Apologies are hard to give when the historical narrative of a nation’s ascendancy entirely sidesteps what happened to its indigenous inhabitants.

When Rudd spoke two years ago outside the halls of parliament, a crowd of Aborigines listened — many in tears — displaying what it meant to be recognized.

At the time, skeptics argued that Rudd — who refused to make any financial reparations — had made a meaningless apology. Australian prime ministers, like presidents of the United States, have long been promising that their government would finally reverse ill treatment of the indigenous population.

However, time and time again, these new dawns have quickly faded.

Prime Minister Rudd returned to parliament last week to report on the “next chapter in the history of this great country.” The prime minister reported that progress was slow because “generations of indigenous disadvantage cannot be turned around overnight.”

Rudd’s new chapter rests upon a $4.8 billion Close the Gap program, targeting Aboriginal disadvantages from high infant mortality to poor education levels.

By almost every socioeconomic indicator, Aboriginal poverty is reminiscent of sub-Saharan Africa. The life expectancy of indigenous people in Australia is 17 years lower than the rest of the population; the rate of infant mortality is twice as high; and, an ethnic group that makes up 2% of the population accounts for 24% of the incarcerated.

“Lady, I pay rent to the government for sleeping on a mattress in the desert. I have no home, I don’t have a voice, no one is listening to me or my family,” said a 90 year old Aboriginal elder to Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International.

Rudd’s assessment of his Aboriginal policies two years on largely ignored the second great Indigenous issue: native sovereignty.

Unlike in America, where a library of treaties sets out the parameters of tribal sovereignty, Australia has historically made little pretense at recognizing Aboriginal land rights. Australia had legally been a terra nullis, and thus, the first property rights belonged to the settlers.

It was not until 1992 that the Supreme Court finally overruled the concept of terra nullis, leaving in its wake a persistent ambiguity over when Aboriginals can claim back land.

This is the fundamental problem for indigenous sovereignty the world over. Nations like Australia and the United States were built upon the seizure of indigenous land based upon a legality that cannot be justified in the modern day. Today, with any new chapter for indigenous people invariably involving the return of their lands, how can modern nations redress past injustice — whilst protecting the property interests of the dominant group?

There is also little consensus on the issue of whether to follow the American Indian model of communal land ownership or to allow Aboriginals to assume private land rights. The former keeps indigenous community lands together, whilst the latter gives Aborigines that cornerstone of Western society: individual property rights.

Another big problem with Prime Minister Rudd’s understanding of indigenous sovereignty is an ongoing Intervention in the Northern Territory, where Aborigines make up 32.5% of the population. Rudd has continued his predecessor’s policy of suspending indigenous rights of self-government in the Northern Territory with the help of a police and military presence.

Aborigine communities are banned from having alcohol; the federal government dictates where natives can spend their welfare payments; and parents are heavily punished if their children fail to attend school.

This controversial policy was precipitated by a shocking report concerning widespread child abuse among indigenous communities in 2007.

Indigenous politicians are outraged, but Rudd faces a dilemma that displays the fundamental paradox of his position. The government feels that it must interfere to deal with desperate problems in indigenous communities, whilst needing to respect Aboriginal sovereignty.

Many argue that this is the problem with the entire “Close the Gap” program, as Rudd tries to deliver change from Canberra — as opposed to empowering native communities.

The issue with Rudd’s apology is that it is far from clear how Australia can make amends. The daunting task of closing the gap is met with an equally challenging question of how to give Aboriginal governments control of their own lands.

- Jamie Macfarlane

In the state of Chiapas, Mexico, about 25 percent of people don’t speak any Spanish. Rather, they speak a host of indigenous languages, many of which originated in ancient Mayan times. Some organizations, like the Intercultural University of Chiapas school in San Cristobal, work to keep these dying languages alive by teaching them to the next generation.

Worldfocus special correspondent Lynn Sherr and producer Megan Thompson highlight Mexico’s attempt to preserve the past by speaking ancient languages in the present tense.

Below, learn about other endangered languages across Latin America and listen to audio samples courtesy of the Archive of the Indigenous Languages of Latin America.

There are more than 600 indigenous languages still in use across Latin America, though hundreds more have disappeared over the last several centuries and still more face imminent extinction. Below are a few examples of endangered languages across Central and South America.

Achuar: Used by communities living near the Amazon Rainforest in Ecuador and Peru, Achuar is a potentially endangered language spoken by a few thousand people. Listen to a ceremonial visiting conversation: Click

Iquito: Iquito is a highly endangered language spoken in parts of Peru. Many of its native speakers died of malaria in the 1990s and there are only 22-26 elderly speakers still alive. Listen to the story of a man who imitates the call of a frog: Click

Kawésqar: A language spoken primarily in Chile, Kawésqar is spoken by less than 100 people, many of whom are bilingual and speak Spanish. Listen to a love song: Click

Pipil: The Pipil are an indigenous group of El Salvador. The language was outlawed in the 1930s and only a handful of people speak it today. Listen to a guitar song: Click

Rama: Native to Nicaragua, there are only about 24 people who speak Rama left. Listen to the song “Our Oyster Shells”: Click

Yanomami: The Yanomami are a large indigenous tribe living mostly in Brazil. With about 11,000 speakers, the language is considered partially endangered. Listen to Yanomami women sing: Click

For more on disappearing languages, see The National Geographic’s Enduring Voices project.

Information courtesy of the Encyclopedia of the World’s Endangered Languages.