How is this not the most fucking retarded politically correct unintentionally ironic lefty retconning of all time?It would be like if the third riech conquered Eastern Europe and decades latter poles and Russians were calling themselves >”Native Germans”Tell me, what fucking native tribe does the word “ American” come from?Is that an algonquin??Is it mother fucking choctaw???
We should just called them Indians and call Indians Bharatese.
>>18690600By this logic the word African is also a redconning since it's not originally African, but European
>>18690626The word Africa comes from a berber tribe that inhabited North Africa.
>>18690600
>>18690600Well anon you'll be glad to hear that it's actually a retcon on top of a retcon. Before "American" independence the colonials referred to themselves as Englishmen. And how did they refer to the Indians? Well, they called them Americans.
smartest his poster
>>18690633>The word Africa comes from a berber tribe that inhabited North Africa.There is absolutely no clear agreed upon origin to this word. There are many candidates. But, in the case of the literal "Africa," this was originally used as the name of a Roman province.
It's 'cause they needed a broad term to refer to all the various ethnic groups in the area (who were treated similarly by the US government, if nothing else) and it had to be ethnically neutralUse an Algonquin or Choctaw word and other Native Americans, especially those who had hostile pre-contact relations with those peoples, start getting worried the movement is a front for an ethnic group they don't belong to and might not even like
>>18690825The legal term is and always has been "American Indian"leftists in the 60s thought they were smart though so they decided upon an old Know Nothing Party populist anti-immigration canyard
>>18690661what is this new evidence suggesting europeans traveled to the americas 26k-19k years ago
Ok, but to more succintly get to the source of it; did they have a term they referred to themselves as collectively? Being isolated as long as they were and being relatively homogenous, did they see the distal ends of their genetic clade as we saw europeans vs asians (being that they had no point of reference, other than the dorset/inuit I suppose, but I doubt the bulk of them knew of their existence), and if so did they have terms for general clades to use? If not what was their general term for "human" cause then that would be the next-most logical way to identify them. Turtle Island is what I remember reading they allegedly referred to America as, so I guess we could alternatively call them turtlemen if there's nothing else.I think the south americans should get authority on this matter too, cause they weren't oral and thus if any of their remaining records have mention of the above, then it would be naturally more valid than their oral bretheren, who's history is hard to take seriously given treehugger romanticization slop (which the above turtle island may be part of, but I recall was consistent with early european accounts).
Nigga Germans didn't invent the name Germany either, it comes from the Latins and Gauls. Native Americans are the native dwellers of the land commonly referred to as America, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that name or description.
>>18690925>Native Americans are the native dwellers of the land commonly referred to as America, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that name or description.Well that requires stripping all sentiments from names, such as referring to America as "a piece of land that happens to have a common name", rather than that name being an expression of identity. There was a clear motive behind retconning how the tribal Indians were called, there's no doubt about it.
>>18690941>such as referring to America as "a piece of land that happens to have a common name", rather than that name being an expression of identity.Are you esl or underage? It's both. It's perfectly reasonable to refer to the geographic area of America purely as a location, especially since the United States is only a small part of the Americas.>There was a clear motive behind retconning how the tribal Indians were called, there's no doubt about it.Yes, the motive was grouping them together for basic convenience, the same was we refer to europeans, middle easterners, africans, etc, as a group instead of naming every single ethnic group in those regions one by one.You are making up things to get angry about because you are a mongoloid child
>>18691006Do you think that the UN adopting the "accurate Africa" map projection had no ulterior motives either?
>>18690908it's new, and it's evidence. It's a new evidence. It's right there on the image, written "new evidence"
>>18691027Look at this loser trying to change the subject after being called out as a brainlet, just desperately grasping for insults to hurl around to distract everyone from him embarrassing himself
>>18690661Northern Europeans didn't really have any settlements that far into the Americas. I mean, they HAD settlements, but they were mostly in the north, like I said, not too far into the Americas. "Native Americans", or whatever term fits best, lived all over the Americas
>>18691054They were already called "tribal Indians" or "Amerindians"(the short-form in particular to distinguished them from America's ethno-religious core) before and you know very well why those names was retconned.
>>18690600That's not how it works, ESL-tard.
>>18690600'American' already entered the English lexicon to describe any inhabitant of the New World since the 1500s, sorry but it simply predates the United States and its political identity. The USA itself chose that name because they expected to incorporate Canada, Newfoundland, the West Indies, etc. into their union too. The consolidation of "American" as an identity exclusive to what we now call the USA, along with the subsequent transformation of "the USA (plural)" to "the USA (singular)" was a later and unintended development from what the 1776 generation had in mind. Do note that in Spanish and French, they often refer to US denizens as "Estadunidense" and not as "Americano/Americain"
>>18691094>sorry but it simply predates the United States and its political identity.So does the old-stock American identity itself though. Yes they were still "Englishmen" but the ethnogenesis was well underway.
>>18691131Well too bad for them, language largely doesn't work in accordance to the whims of a few individuals. "American" nowadays is generally understood to refer to the political-state-citizen identity of the USA whilst "Native American" is understood to refer to the peoples who inhabited these lands before the English colonies and then the succeeding USA annexed them. These terms communicate these concepts effectively to 99% of the English speaking population of the world and hence remain in usage.
>>18691134>These terms communicate these concepts effectively to 99% of the English speaking populationSince around the 1960's-70's. Language can readily be changed as you have demonstrated.
>>18690665>Well, they called them Americans.they called them indians, reds or fucking savages. you are making shit up.
>>18690908pangea theoryice age migration theoryproto-viking theorypick your poison
>>18690600"Don't look behind you."
>>18690600>hey hey, look at the name, look at the name, pay no attention to the tortures rapes and murders, that guy that smashed the baby head against the post, defending his way of life.
>>18690600>Muh semantics and etymologyHonestly, who cares? The continents of America were named after Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian guy. So what?
>>18691064Because Indian refers to the people of India and its dumb to use the same name for two completely different people on opposite sides of the earth?
It's best to refer to any given Indian or community of Indians by their actual nation/tribe, when you're speaking on that level of specificity. But when speaking much more broadly, about all the various peoples of the American continents before "Columbian" contact, it's vain to hope there's a perfect term that's perfectly indigenous label, void of reference to the Old World. Indigenous to whom? What native language has a term for the Americas, or even North America -- as opposed to the entire, and mostly unknown, world? I wager not one. And even if they did, whose would we use?The naming of things is pretty arbitrary, and there's no escaping it here either. I think if we just agree to understand that Native American/Amerindian/First Nations etc. aren't meant to be and can't be really accurate cultural or ethnic signifiers, the semantics of it all sort of recedes in importance. More important is having a way to define the whole broad category of people who were here first, say for policy purposes, and to have good fair policies based on that common understanding.
>>18691829>Because Indian refers to the people of India and its dumb to use the same name for two completely different people on opposite sides of the earth?That's why you say dot Indians for the people of Bharat.
The only natives I’ve ever met preferred the term Indian over Native American. American Indian if they need to avoid confusion. To be fair though it was one of my close friends who is eastern band Cherokee which are the ones who assimilated and didn’t get relocated. He once called his people “race traitors” as a joke but it may explain why they go with Indian over Native American.
>>18690600Indigenous is just a leftist euphemism for "brown savage", and you'll never see it attributed to any native Eurasian population. Especially if you consider the implications of progressive rhetoric about "indigenous people have an inalienable right to possess their ethnic homelands and exclude outsiders"
>>18690600Muh leftists
>>18691829"India" itself is loaded with European self-reference, is not a native term, and is not how Indians actually refer to India. Actually, the habit of calling India "India" and its people "Indians" is more recent than the identification of American natives as indios. In English, for instance, the Indian subcontinent was known as Hindoostan and its people Hindoos, even though that's also not comprehensively accurate.Exonyms are arbitrary, misleading and imperfect. It's the way of the world. We use them because they are readily and commonly understand to signify something by people who speak our language. It's barely any extra effort to specify American Indians vs. Indians, and if there was some other term that didn't share any similairity with the other, it would still be arbitrary and effectively foreign to many if not most people it signifies. And mark I said signifies, not identifies. You can see what direction I'm pointing, but you need a lot more than a name to know what it is you're looking at. Semantics doesn't much help anyone there
>>18691949So then why did they start calling American Natives Indians to begin with?
>>18691951Because they lived in Western India (West Indies), in relation to Eastern India (Hidustan, SEA, Pacific islands).They were also Indios, meaning they had swarthy, fatty skin, little to no beards, thick black hair with comparatively small amount of balding, etc.In other words, they expected to arrive in Asia (which they called India with the exception of China and Tartaria-nomads) and see Asians (Indios) and that's exactly what they found in the Americas.Once it became clear it's not the same Asia that they got tea and silks from, they called it West Asia (Indies) as opposed to East Asia (Indies) as it was to the west of Europe.
>>18691951It was a marketing stunt by Columbus. He set out for the Indies looking for pepper, but he missed, so called the people "indios" and called the chiles "pepper." "Mission Accomplished."It should probably be noted that the Indies (plural) he was seeking weren't continental India. He never thought he was in India; he was aware he had reached islands. And he had set out to reach islands, which were never considered equivalent to or part of "India."Exonyms are pretty much bullshit, but we have them anyway. My point is, the misidentification that people think took place is not what happened, and the conflation that people commonly believe they're making basically happened in the opposite order. American Indians aren't named after India so much as India is named after an equally vague and misleading blanket term that implicitly references Occidentalism. The old terms giving us the name of India meaning "beyond the Indus," meaning East of the Indus -- East of us. Our name "Indus" just comes from older IE roots meaning "river" generally. Ultimately, everything East of Pakistan was being called "River" even if it was in the middle of the damn Pacific, and today the fucking Indus doesn't moisten a single inch of fucking India.
>>18692030My bad, the Indus does flow through Kashmir, so I guess it depends on who you are whether my statement was correct. I have no dog in that fight whatsoever, it's just more arbitrarities piled on top of more historical abritrarities
>>18691936Fortunately, definitions don't change based on the political leanings of fart-sniffing, beanie-wearing retarded faggots bouncing on their pink dildos. Europeans are indigenous to their lands, same as anyone else. There's no reason for anyone on any side to get assmad over the term.
>>18692112>definitions don't change based on the political leanings of fart-sniffing, beanie-wearing retarded faggots bouncing on their pink dildosUnfortunately, all language is prescriptive and subject to the whims of the dominant cultural and educational institutions
>>18692112>There's no reason for anyone on any side to get assmad over the term.Unless you assert that Europeans have the same rights to their ethnic homelands that the Quechua, Hutu, and Cherokee do. That tends to make progressive types incensed.
>We acknowledge that we are on the land of $tribes who have been here since time immemorialUmmm ACKSHUALLY they migrated here from Siberia. If you accept that "indigenous" Siberian-Americans should have special rights and privileges in the Americas, surely you recognize that England is for the "indigenous" English, Germany is for Germans, Japan is for the Japanese...? No? Well why not. Oh, because you dont look down on them like you look down on these American tribal people. YOU'RE RACIST! DO BETTER!Same thing in Australia with their "welcome to country" messages, the equivalent to Canada or US "land acknowledgements." Abos didn't spawn on Australia from nothing, they got there from somewhere long ago, the "dream time" is cope.
>>18691061Indians in North America are completely unrelated to Indians in South America
>>18692161American Indians have been in these continents for some 15,000 years. That's like three times longer than the recorded history -- of anybody. Many more that of Europeans. Yes, the history of humanity is migration. Still happening. Nobody's rights or entitlements are entirely fixed. Nor is it fair to accuse anyone of merely squatting.But for Westerners to cite the Siberian migration as proof that, actually, we have as much indigenous right to the Americas as they do is just offensively dumb. So is comparing the violent and coercive dispossession and depopulation of indigenous communities to nonviolent, 21st-century migration between modern nation-states. Fuck off with that garbage. It's dumb.Saying colonialism was bad that natives have some entitlements is not to say that whites should get the fuck out and everyone should stick only to their own country forever. It's to say that maybe we shouldn't have come here, treated them as subhuman and ruined all their lives. It's that maybe our ancestor's conduct didn't actually earn us a place here. That's a matter of opinion, but I'm sick of nitwits acting like indigeneity is either permanently fixed and sacrosanct, or literally meaningless. And especially comparing modern migration to American colonialism. It's moral insecurity at its most pernicious
>>18690600I've spent the last week reading the diaries of a few people stationed/located in the wilds of Michigan in the mid 1700's. Reading accounts of the native activity as it happened has a certain black-pilling quality to it.
>>18692223>being descended from people who lived in a land a long time ago means you perpetually have a right to itSo you support Jewish claims to Palestine right?
>>18690661Why is the Viking saying it and not trump himself?
>>18692182Machine learning says they're the same
>>18692233They cluster with Sicilians not indigenous samples
>>18692346Yeah the Ashkenazi Jews are European converts, but if you can identify as a woman when you are a man, then surely you can identify as a different race. Personally, as a non-practicing white I have chosen to identify as "Indigenous"/"First Nations"/"Metis" whatever will get me the most free stuff.
>>18692354Ben Gvir the worst jew in Israel is from around that area for real so he does belong there.Netanyahu would cluster with Victor Orban, basically slavic.
>>18691829Well good thing India is no longer interested in name Indian!
>>18690600Something like 10% of Native Americans in the US have West Eurasian Y-haplogroups like R1b. They're much more mixed than people think.
Old race maps often called the injuns americans or americanoids.
>>18692940>They're much more mixed than people think.Who the fuck even looks at the average US "Native" and thinks to themslves, "Yeah, that's just like how chief Fuck Roundeye Whiteskins" looked like.Of course they are almost all mixed today. It's just how population dynamics work for groups of people that were a single town of 10k-ish people within a continental state of millions of white (and not-so-white) settlers when modern medicine and the associated population explosion arrived.That sort of tiny population is not even biologically viable, that is without explicitly planned breeding, they naturally kill themselves off with inbreeding. And while the US is certainly fucked up, they never had a "Native American Species Preservation Breeding Program" nor do these people walk around with blue blood and habsburg chins. Once completely surrounded by others, they inevitably had to fuck and get fucked by those others.
>>18690925English should've either stuck with Dutchland or AlmainI also just wanted to say the word þiudiskaz i think it's pretty neat
>>18692161>If you accept that "indigenous" Siberian-Americans should have special rights and privileges in the Americas, surely you recognize that England is for the "indigenous" English, Germany is for Germans, Japan is for the Japanese...?Yes, I do because I live in Europe and am against mass migration and muffication. The spanish and portuguese colonization has been a disaster for the injuns. They've become mutts abominations and also partially negrified due to the black slaves there. Just look at the caribbeans. Once injun land now negro land, some negros there larp as injuns.>>18692223Fuck off leftist scum.
>>18690600>It would be like if the third riech conquered Eastern Europe and decades latter poles and Russians were calling themselves No, that's not how it works. Slavs have long history with their own culture, identity and so on. American tribes haven't.
>>18693037>That sort of tiny population is not even biologically viable, that is without explicitly planned breedingYou need 600 individuals to maintain a genetically healthy population forever, as few as 100 if they are really genetically diverse
>>18693055I think that's just a bullshit claim.
>>18693057It's correct, but only in a vacuum.
>>18693055Yeah, if you're running an industrial breeding operation of a species with accurate family registers going back to those OG 600.Humans, however, aren't purebred dogs, horses or rabbits and the minimums for when you let people live normal lives (where some die childless, some are gay, a big family greatly reduces the resources for the next gen, some leave the group in search of a proper job, etc. etc.) grow way past that shooting into the 10s of thousands for something that stays viable and growing in the long run.
>>18692233>a long time agoI'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people who have lived in a place for a long time, not people who once did and no longer do.Personally I think people should be able to live where they want as long as they don't fuck with other people. But I think even people who would screech at that agree that, surely, you have some right to live where you currently live and have lived for generations.
>>18692223>comparing modern migration to American colonialismWho does that? That would be accepting leftist anti-colonialist framework. No thanks.
>>18693360I mean, see the post I replied to. I don't think leftists believe that modern migration and European colonialism are at all the same, because they favor one and oppose the other.Colonialism apologists suggest they're the same for the sake of argument, but again, they tend to oppose one and favor the other. They don't think they're the same.That's why it's a stupid argument to make. Neither side of the argument thinks they're the same thing, so it'd be visibly insincere to pretend you do, or that your opponent should.
>>18691936>>18692131>Indigenous is just a leftist euphemism for "brown savage", and you'll never see it attributed to any native Eurasian population. Especially if you consider the implications of progressive rhetoric about "indigenous people have an inalienable right to possess their ethnic homelands and exclude outsiders"Incorrect, the Sami are a white European population that is often considered indigenous within the context progressive social justice contextsAlso, the modern definition of colonialism and indigenous actually has less to do with social justice and leftism, and more to do with international geopolitics. The UN passed a specific definition of colonialism (which in turn then informed how people went on to define indigeneity) that defined it as requiring oceanic separation between the colonizer and its colonies, because that definition was the one that could win the necessary political support: definitions that included same-region conquests as examples of colonialism would have undermined recent and ongoing territorial acquisitions and changes by European nations in Europe itself, which they didn't want to undermined, and it also would have ticked off the US because it would open them up to potential pushback by Native Americans, and I believe China also had similar concerns with that. The ocean-separation definition avoided those problems, European nations at the time were willing to accept endorsing it meaning potential losses for overseas territories and in africa because they were seen as less important, and that definition also appealed to the numerous african members since it would benefit them (and they were also uppity about a broader definition that included land-connected conquests because obviously Africa had a lot of ongoing territorial disputes and changes that could get undermined by that)More info: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1aot4nr/why_is_the_term_colonialism_largely_not_applied/kq38fuj/
>>18692161>If you accept that "indigenous" Siberian-Americans should have special rights and privileges in the Americas. surely you recognize that England is for the "indigenous" English, Germany is for Germans, Japan is for the Japanese...? No? Well why not. Oh, because you dont look down on them like you look down on these American tribal peopleWhile I'm sure that there are some people who believe that Amerindians have some sacred ethno-nationalistic right to their historic lands or whatever, the actually sane argument that people generally implicitly refer to when they bring up things like land acknowledgments and how the land was "stolen" is in reference to the fact that various colonial powers signed treaties with Indigenous nations that formally recognized they owned their land, and then said colonists ignored those treaties and took the land anywaysIt's a specific legal/international law dispute, not merely people being assmad that the injuns lost, or at least that's the claimed logic and reasoning.
>>18694822>this one group of people totalling a population of 100,000 count as indigenous so stop complaining, chud
>>18690621*hindoos
There wouldn't be a native name for the Americas because natives didn't know the extent of these continents, much less that the whole supercontinent is just one part of the wider world. Then again, Vespucci didn't know the extent of it either. Maybe it isn't fair to imply he discovered the whole thing.But then what? We might have to call North America "Merriwetheria." Or "Sverdrupheim." At least America is something Americans can pronounce.Throughout the Americas, lots of place names are indigenous. I think that's good and cool. Westerners haven't claimed naming rights on Mexico, or Ogunquit or Nunavut because those places already had names. Names for the bigger chunks, which could only have been known once technology permitted, seem naturally enough to be named after the fashion of the people who navigated and mapped those huge masses. Whatever. Otherwise, I'd recommend the Algonquian for "Two great lands cinched in the middle." Online dictionaries have been no help here.
>>18694822That's just backward reasoning in order to absolve non-white countries of any historical guilt about wars of conquest, while also affirming the special privileges afforded to non-Eurasians. >the Sami are a white European population that is often considered indigenous within the context progressive social justice contextsBecause they're tribal and underdeveloped compared to the rest of Europe. If you applied the "ocean seperatation" definition then they're not any more or less indigenous than other Nordic cultures.
>>18694826>formally recognized they owned their land, and then said colonists ignored those treaties and took the land anywaysBecause the tribes often broke the treaties themselves due to the fact that they lacked the political, technological and social organization thats required to enforce treaty terms over a tribal population dispersed over hundreds or thousands of miles. >It's a specific legal/international law disputeOther non-white countries reneged on agreements all the time, they just lacked the record keeping and legal framework for international agreements that the Europeans had.
>>18690941America is the name of the continent. And we commonly refer to people by where they are from. So they would be Americans. But that is obviously confusing because we also named our country America and call ourselves Americans for the same reason. So we throw native on there to differentiate the pre-colonial population and their descendants. That's all there is to it.
>>18692223>not to say that whites should get the fuck out>maybe our ancestor's conduct didn't actually earn us a place hereWhich is it, rat? Also "our" and "us"? jews aren't White.>And especially comparing modern migration to American colonialism. Yes, that is retarded. The colonists landed on the shores of largely untamed wilderness and build an entire civilization. Immigrants show up at civilization were developed than their own and demand gibs.
>>18695506It's descriptive, not prescriptive, numbnuts. My whole thing is that people shouldn't be kicked out of where they've lived for ages. Put it together: That means you and me shouldn't be kicked out. It also means Westerners shouldn't have displaced all the fucking Indians in the first place. That's a statement of opinion about the past. It has shit to do with you now except that it bothers you to hear it.Too bad, so sad. Both for the Indians, and for you, when someone does a land acknowledgment. Go bang a fucking drum about it.
>>18690600False premise, Germany isn't a continent, Russians are Native Europeans, and the perpetrator would be another Native European country.The reason the Native American term is relevant is because they are the original now-minority race co-residing with other non-American races of the world.Also jeets semipermanently dissassociated the term Indian from Native Americans.
>>18690661White skin in europe didn't develop until much later, and even then it was rare until very recently.
>>18694830Anon, the post I replied to very clearly said "you'll never see it attributes to any native Eurasian population", emphasis on "never" and "any".If they or you (if you're the same anon), didn't consider a single example to be sufficient, then they/you shouldn't have worded their post that way.And I already explained why considering Eurasian ethnic groups as indigenous is the case: The definition the UN adopted for "colonialism" requires oceanic separation, and, you should know this if you've studied history, but no empires from overseas locations colonized Europe or Asia, other then other European empires colonizing Asian nations and states, and I guess you can argue some stuff with interactions between China and Japan, but neither of those places are still colonized by the opposite power todayActually, I take that back, the Ainu are another Eurasian population generally considered indigenous and subject to colonial rule or oppression from the majority Japanese population, so there you go, one more beyond the Sami>>18695456>That's...backward reasoning...to absolve non-white countries of...historical guilt about wars of conquest, while...affirming the...privileges afforded to non-EurasiansNo, it's not, the post I linked very clearly outlined that geopolitical interests of European nations, the United States, etc, alongside African ones, were the ones who pushed for that definition. >If you applied the "ocean seperatation" definition...they're not any more...indigenous than other Nordic culturesYes, but as I was careful to note in >>18694822 that the UN's definition of colonialism "informed how people went on to define indigeneity", they are not quite defined the same way. In fact, people tend to define "indigenous" today with a BROADER definition then what the UN's definition of colonialism would imply, which undermines your implication that this is all some sinster plot to hold up tribal populations and/or be anti-EuropeanRan out of space
>>18695887>>18695456Continued:The definition of "indigenous" most people tend to use today is something like "a population in a position of marginalization by a foreign ethnic group that moved into their territory and continues to hold social/political power over them", which, again, is broader then the UN's definition of colonialism/colonized and actually directly contradicts your assertion here:>Because they're tribalBecause that definition makes a LOT of things colonialism and a lot of groups indigenous who are not tribal societies (it's just tribal societies tend to stay/become indigenous more often because they are less able to resist more organized ones: How often does a tribal society conquer a urbanized empire?)For example, Britain's occupation of India is one of the most classic and widely agreed on examples of colonialism, and India was one of the main hotbed centers of complex urban civilizations with empires, kingdoms, etc across history. Same for the rest of Asia, much of which was also considered to be colonized for much of the past 400-500 years. Even in the Americas, Mexico, Guatemala etc and Peru had developed civilizations with urban cities and nobody disputes those cultures were colonized or even are still indigenous today, even if you want to argue they were somewhat relatively underdeveloped compared to Europeans at the time (but I'm not even sure it's the case that, say, the Aztec were any more behind Spain at the time, then India or China was behind Britain in the 19th century?)The only difference here is that those places are not CURRENTLY colonized or occupied, so therefore their denizens aren't considered indigenous anymore. India and basically the rest of Asia are now independent (and even then, I'd bet you can find at least some people who argue Indian ethnic minorities or lower castes count as indigenous). Ran out of space again
>>18695869Sure. Race isn't skin deep.
>>18695890>>18695456Continued:I alluded to this earlier, but on the flip side, this is NOT true of modern Maya, Quechua etc communities who were urbanized kingdoms and empires but are still considered indigenous today because they never really achieved independence and still face marginalization. You'll also note that they are currently considered indigenous relative to Mestizos, not Europeans, despite the fact that progressives and the left still considered mestizos to be minorities too, which again goes against this all just being an anti-european thingConsider also Israel and Palestine" the Jews that were sent to establish Israel really weren't any more organized socially then the Palestinians there, the former were displaced migrants themselves and, with aid of larger nations, then made the Palestinians displaced migrants, and now Israelis are considered a colonizing force and the Palestinians an indigenous one even though there's wasn't a "urban state vs tribal society" dynamic between themIn conclusion, there's many examples that contradict your assertions here. I'm not a bleeding heart woke SJW, in fact a fair amount of what they do annoys me, but I don't think that the way they and most people tend to define and think of "colonialism" and "indigeneity" is actually anti-European or anti White, and those definitions, while not objectively correct and inarguable, do make some sense and seems mostly internally consistent with themselves (but not entirely with each other due to the fact that indigeneity doesn't have the oceanic separation requirement that colonialism does)It's just that Europeans generally were not taken over by foreign powers as much, foreign powers within Europe taking over each other tended to not leave ethnic marginalized minorities around for people to rally around, and most of the examples of non-tribal societies that got colonized around the world eventually achieved independence, so they aren't considered indigenous anymoreFin
>>18695906>>18695890>>18695887>>18695456Actually, I forgot something, there are other arguable examples of European ethnic groups sometimes considered to be Indigenous beyond the Sami: The Irish (within the context of British occupation, it's just, again, that's not as much a pressing thing anymore since Ireland achieved independence, kinda), the Romani, and some others. Hell I even think I've seen some people say the Catalan are "indigenous"
>>18690661eurotards weren't even in europe until the yamnayas invaded like 5000 years ago
>>18690633even if that's true, that's just one small tribe
>>18690633No it does not. This is an Afrocentric canard.
>>18695922>Irish and CataloniansHistorically "leftist" demographics from the past century. Also not a coincidence
>>18695906>>18695890You could've just written that indigenous labeling is dependent on conquest and ethnic ostracization by exclusively European/white powers, which just proves my point. Certain powers affirming this view through UN resolutions for geopolitical reasons doesn't change the intent behind it.
>>18695887>In fact, people tend to define "indigenous" today with a BROADER definition then what the UN's definition of colonialism would implyYes because in common parlance it's been broadened to include all underdeveloped minority demographics that were "oppressed" by whites or Eurasians. You're just proving my point.
>>18694822aren't Sami Asiatic looking?
>>18697006I think even more simply, the way the term is used, it means "they were were when we showed up." There's the sense that the natural course of history ends whenever/wherever transoceanic Westerners intercede.I think that's a Eurocentric mentality, even if it's well-intended by opponents of Eurocentrism. It's also not how history works. But I have to admit, it's an idea that's just been in the water a long time, and it's hard to shake. Even Star Trek's Prime Directive speaks to this.
>>18697097Not really
>>18694842Not all Bharatese are hindoo, though. Some are mooslime.
>>18695922So it means "victims", got it.
>>18690908Solutrean Hypothesis.The idea is reliant on two branches of evidence.The first is that the Clovis people use a specific type of stone tool making that is otherwise only found in the much older Solutrean culture of Europe. It is a specific type of knapping that resulted in very thin and sharp blades that was extremely technically challenging to master.The concept being that the Solutreans crossed over through the Arctic and either were the ancestors of the Clovis people or had cultural osmosis with them and spread it that way.The other end is that haplogroup X2 appears in both Eastern North America and Europe+West Asia with a huge gap between. It is not found in East Asia or Western North America.The idea was that a trans-Arctic route of genetic dispersal was the main method of this Haplogroup spreading to America without leaving a trace in Asia or Western North America.The problem with this is that the hypothesis was more or less reliant on a Clovis-first hypothesis. That Clovis was the oldest culture in North America.This has been disproven and it is known that there were many pre-Clovis cultures in North America. This makes convergrent evolution more likely than otherwise.The haplogroup argument is disputed based on the idea that the variant of X2 found in North America is an independent branch that is not found in Europe or West Asia, ever. The geographic gap between branches is better explained by early North American settlers just being extremely nomadic and the remnants that could have been left in-between being absorbed or killed off.
>>18697125Calling a Mohammedan a Hindoo pisses them off spectacularly though (tends to upset the Hindoos as well), which is always a good laugh.
>>18690600Of course it is a retcon. It's a sign that Heritage Americans lost a significant amount of control.No one in Turkey is making (((land acknowledgements))) for the Greeks or Kurds let alone Armenians.So yes, it's really the Tribes, or Tribal Americans given the first Spanish settlements.
Typically we say Tribal Native Americans. The 'tribal' distinction is important for context. Or you could say "the ancestral natives". Technically native just means you live in the country which you were born.
>>18697189Solutrean hypothesis is a dead meme. X2 came to Europe with Anatolian farmers, it wasn't preset there in hunter gatherers. The split of Eurasian and American subclades is dated to almost 14,000 BCE. And lastly, it was found in one of the earliest American samples -the Kennewick man who was genetically an American Indian.
First, every language has its own words for things. Funny you should worry about what to call “Indians” when you call Zhonggou “China, “ or the Zhongguoren “Chinese!” Second, sometimes people take offense because it gives them the power to shame, not because they are actually offended. Haven’t you ever wondered why none of the derogatory words for White people ever sticks? It is because White people already have the power, and to not have to pretend offense to gain the upper hand. Ever wonder why the words gay and queer never stuck, even though they, at one time, were as bad as faggot? Because White gay people embraced those terms to take the power away from those that used those words to “other-ize” them. Wonder why all of a sudden, using “gay” to mean stupid is now considered offensive? Because that is how successfully homosexuals have stolen back the slur. Just say'n
>>18690600I have a friend who is tee pee Indian. I use all terms interchangeably.
>>18690661People still believe the euro first meme lol. The Natives have probably been in the U.S region for at least 30,000 years.
>>18697693source?
>>1869770822,000 year old footsteps in Southwest. Obviously from natives in that area.Some prehistoric native wares in South America dated to over 30,000 years ago. Made from a Giant Sloth they ate. If the Natives were in South America 30,000 years ago. Then its fair to assume Natives were also present in North America at an earlier date. They have the same genes, they are related groups. Even 40,000 is in the realm of possibility. The Natives have been here for a long time.
>>18695450We could call it Anahuac or cemanahuac, which meant something like "the world surrounded by water"
>>18691094>The USA itself chose that name because they expected to incorporate CanadaNo, the 1783 Treaty of Paris, AKA one of the founding documents of the USA itself, immediately disproves this claim
>>18690891The legal term was 'Savage Brownoids' until the Civil Rights Act, Anon. Native Americans is modern revisionism.
>>18698259Yeah they failed to acquire Canada in the war, but an attempt was made and most Americans kept thinking it was "just a matter of time" until they got it, it was only after the War of 1812 that the idea was finally buried.
