>These are the saami!>They are the indigenous inhabitants of scandinavia.....As opposed to the swedes and norse who are colonizer white scum?They weren't there longer than the majority of the people who live in those countries now (and were actually argued to have arrived slightly later or at least the cultures whose practices theirs descend from), how tf did they pull that psyop off.
>>18481844They are the indigenous inhabitants of Lapland, not the entirety Scandinavia. While germanics migrated to south Scandinavia and later colonised the north. They fit every definition of indigenous, even oppression points included Next time just google properly retard
Indigenous of northern Scandinavia, not southern.Colonized is a very loaded word btw. We built trade posts along the coast to extract timber and minerals. Sami then (peacefully) became subjects of the realm, mostly because the king wanted to tax them.We kinda treated them like shit during the 1800 tho when the whole race thing and nationalism became important./Swede
>>18481850I didn't google anything. Being pretty familiar with lappland and scandinavia, I reacted to a very common quote. So on 4chan, unlike reddit, the greentext means I'm quoting someone. Just for future reference. >>18481877I know. Thank you. My question remains unanswered. That question being how come in popular discussion with regard to them, they are treated like the native americans in the western hemisphere are.
>>18481850on some real shit you definitely are a retard and didn't understand the post, would you politely post hand?
>>18481850The official consensus on the matter, as recognised by all NGOs and academics etc, is that Saami are the only indigenous people of Scandinavia and possibly all of Europe.
>>18481844They're white so who cares.Into the melting pot they go.
>>18481909So shlomo the reason it is bad is because their tiny little group is used to justify the mass migration of somalians etc. into scandinavia since the native actual scandinavians are now considered no better than immigrants thanks to the psyop op mentioned.
>>18481891>I reacted to a very common quoteSaid by who, the people in your head?
>>18481915not OP but every single popular or viral discussion of the sami in english labels them "THE native or indigenous inhabitants of scandinavia" just google "Native scandinavians"
>>18481915https://duckduckgo.com/?q=native+scandinavians&source=chrome.ob&ia=web
>>18481915i have never seen someone be so fucking retarded in so few words. are you indian?
>>18481844Indigenity as a legal category was specifically created to protect disenfranchised minoritarian peoples that would otherwise just be paved over by established states and exterminated/forcefully-assimilated/exploited/etc.It doesn't quite work (Can be abused where it's respected, not respected where it is needed) and the theorical grounds are shaky. But it's not just a classification of "who was first" and by extension "Who gets rights to everything".> how tf did they pull that psyop off.There was no large scale Germanic settlement in Sapmi when they arrived, that's a proven fact. Iirc the Norwegians did eventually climb into the north but that was a little later. Idk.
>>18481844they invented black metal
>>18481850Why didn't they settle in southern Scandinavia too? Less harsh conditions than the North so more favorable land I guess
>>18481933Because there were scandiavians there who defended their lands.
>>18481844https://youtu.be/Dz-iJI9QpiE?is=5-I8HQsy7leBPsfK
>>18481925To add, I think it really is terrible how much indigenou rights are been abused in the last few years, to nearly everyone's detriment in the anglosphere. However, it is really ironic how that process has basically the exact same underpinnings the colonial dispossesions have.>>18481933Iron Age Scandinavians too numerous, too well armed. And for your information, the Sami began populating North Scandinavia after displacing a poorly documented group of previous inhabitants and ultimately eliminating them. (No, indigenity doesn't mean you have to be the first people to ever be there. That's a distinction only the ancient Athenians have because they literally grew from the soil like grass).
>>18481891>That question being how come in popular discussion with regard to them, they are treated like the native americans in the western hemisphere are.Because American culture dominates the west.Even our immigrants here in Sweden associate themselves and their culture with US black minorities in Los Angeles. It's been romanticized.So naturally people start making parallels to the US discourse on their indigenous, and to our own. Even the Black Lives Matter movement spread to Sweden, where young academics began targeting statues of for example Carl von Linne for being racist.
>>18481844indigenous just means backwards minority
>>18481877>>18481850They arent indigenous to Northern Scandinavia.
>>18481844>....As opposed to the swedes and norse who are colonizer white scum?yesswedes and norse are turkish and come from pontic steppes
>>18481925>There was no large scale Germanic settlement in Sapmi when they arrived, that's a proven factFor southern "Sápmi", i.e. Jämtland and Trøndelag, I wouldn't be so sure.
>>18481844>>18481895The real reason that they are virtually alone in Europe to be given the indigenous status is their unique traditional lifestyle of reindeer herding. All the other peoples of Europe were farmers or pastoralists, and having your own unique, ancient, and autochthonous culture that is under threat of assimilation is not quirky enough to be equated with the Injuns in the eyes of ivory tower anthropologists.
>>18481844>>18481895>>18483853>>18483500>>18481976"indigenous" in the academic sense of the word does not simply mean "was there first", it denotes a colonized population, as opposed to a colonizer population. There is no indigene without a colonizer. Which is why scandinavians are not indigenous to Scandinavia and the japanese are not indigenous to Japan, while the Saami and Ainu are.
>>18484059Except there's plenty of other peoples in Europe who have just as much of a claim to being "colonized", like the Bretons, the Corsicans, the Basques, the Sorbs, etc. Even within Scandinavia there's the Tornedalians, the ethnic Finns living on the left bank of the Torne river that separates Sweden from Finland. Again, the real reason is that the Sami have a unique and quirky traditional lifestyle that "needs" protection whereas other European minorities are traditionally farmers and pastoralists like everyone else so nobody cares.Also, the academic definition is not just the academic definition, it is the official definition used by governments and the UN, broadcast to the masses, which can lead to grave misconceptions. Especially here where the translated term is "ursprungsbefolkning", literally original population, which has led to a common belief among those who don't know their history that the Sami are indigenous to the entire country since the term is only ever used for them.
NO THERE'S A PRE-URALIC SUBSTRATUM IN THEIR LANGUAGE THEY ARE FRAUDS NOT INDIGENOUS YOU ARE BROWN YOU'RE WRONG
>>18484110...and when they say "colonization" and "colonizer" they are often specifically referring to the narrow phenomenon that emerged during the age of exploration and defined early modernity, not to the universal and ancient practice of conquest, hence none of those european ethnicities count.
>>18484304So the Sami do not qualify either, but yet they are classified as an indigenous people. No matter how you spin it you cannot escape the fact that it is an extremely arbitrary term, and therefore it is completely useless.
>>18484323But they do since the nordic countries didn't seriously start asserting their dominance over the Sami until the 18th and 19th centuries and did do so using some of the same practices as europeans did elsewhere
Total Germanic domination would have been perfect
>>18484059Sami colonized Scandinavians in the 100s tho
>>18484683Colonization has a set definition, it isn't just 'getting conquered'.>>18484304Actually I'm going to go on a limb here and say that you could make the argument that the irish were colonized.
quick rundown>northern Norway in 2000 BC was still EHG(Eastern Hunter Gatherer) despite some stray Corded Ware finds>Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov people(from the border of Russia and Norway) in 1400 BC were quite Asiatic, a bit more than modern Saami(35% vs 25%)>however they were nothing like Saami people otherwise since they had no Indo-European heritage being mainly EHG while Saami have significant Baltic and Germanic heritage>the same cultural zone as BOO encompassed most of Finnmark and Lapland>BOO people were replaced by the Saami who were driven from southern Finland by competition for resources probably with at least some admixture between them
>>18484683>>18484304
>>18484059Scandinavians are being colonized right now.
>>18484059Then why not just says "colonized people"
>>18484944Not all colonized people need the label of indigenous. Only the disenfranchised minorities.
>>18481895Let's be real in the academic world "indigenous" just means non-white
>>18484948Colonized people are inherently disenfranchised.
>>18484951Well no. Brazilians aren't indigenous, and they aren't white, either. Mexicans(without any further labels) aren't white nor indigenous. The Vietnamese are generally non-indigenous. The Khemer in Vietnam are indigenous but not in Cambodia, etc.Also, the irish travelers are generally considred to be indigenous nowadays.https://www.refworld.org/reference/countryrep/mrgi/2008/64837
>>18481844You having another episode lil schizo and imaging arguments noone has made?
>>18484960Well you do have a point there. But the label is still necessary to separate them from other minorities and colonial subjects.>>18484963I get where he is coming from. He's just approaching the issue from the standpoint of a hopelessly retrenched rightoid who can't engage seriously with it.
>>18484965The irony poisoned mind is a terrible thing to witness.
>>18484960I think it specifically refers to people where the colonizer still is the dominant political force. In academic terms it refers to a pretty specific ongoing relationshipE.g. javanese indonesians were indigenous to java when the dutch were around, but once they left they're not really a people living under a colonial rule anymore, while for example flores islanders or whatever would still be considered indigenous because they are "under" the new indonesian nation state which is also "foreign" to them.I don't think the academic usage is entirely consistent either, because you have cases like bolivia where the natives are the largest ethnic group in the country with their political party in control, but they're still considered indigenous. It is kind of vibes based at the end of the day. I do also think you could make a good case for the basque or sardinians to be considered indigenous under this definition, but again, they don't fit the pseudo-native american "vibe"
>>18484972The system is pretty terrible.
>>18484981It's one of those things were we felt the need to retroactively make up a proper "scientific" definition for a word that has been used for centuries, but of course that proper definition isn't going to map up exactly with how we're actually using that word.Kind of like how periodically people will sperg out about how europe should or shouldn't be considered a continent, when what a continent actually is is just a meaningless retroactive word we used to expand on the greek worldview where they divided the world into 3 parts based on their orientation. Europe being a continent predates the very notion of a continent, if that makes sense.See also a bunch of phylogenetic debates where a whale is a fish, then it isn't, then it is again, etc etc.
