[angry Basque noises]
(twitter.com)
Comments (46)
sorted by:
Excuse me, what?
As the video says:
Skolt Sami are an indigenous people who resettled from Russia.
You know, the indigenous newcomers.
"Indigenous" means brown. "Diverse" means not White.
They're not brown, though.
I think what 'indigenous' actually means is 'people living in their historic homeland and refusing to acknowledge that the industrial revolution happened'.
I think it’s more that many of the Sami are right in on all the IdPol stuff, so that’s why the scummy media like this love to drag them out, lol…
That’s a significant part of this, I believe…
This is hate speech in Europe.
You're not supporting the ethnic replacement that isn't happening but is a good thing
And they wonder why people think the BBC is fake news ...
Finns and Sami are both from Russia and migrated at roughly the same time. Why is one "indigenous" and the other is not?
The Star People placed them down on these lands.
The honest answer is that they aren't white. Indigenous is whoever was there 5 mins before white men showed up. I have yet to get a better definition than that.
The vast majority of Sami people are White. Some have some mixed Siberian ( Asian-ish ) ancestry.
For obvious reasons ( ''White people bad'' ideology ), Leftists zoomed-in on the small minority of Sami who have some east-Asian features and have this idea in their mind that the real Sami are Siberians who were ''colonized'' by Whites.
Please ignore that Finns and Hungarians are part of the same linguistic family as Sami languages. That would mean those are indigenous too, and we can't have that.
Because White People Bad, and SJWs don't have the same false idea that Finns and Hungarians aren't White that they hold about the Sami.
You nailed it perfectly. That's how the Eskimos in Groenland are considered ''indigenous'' despite exterminating the fuck out of the remaining actual first inhabitants ( Dorset people ) some time around correction 1300.
The extermination of the Dorset people by the Eskimos was a slow process over a few centuries all around the American / Groenland Arctic, starting in Alaska correction then Groenland at a time the Norse already had a settlement ( they likely saw both the indigenous Dorset and the Eskimos expansion. ), then Northern Québec.
So the Danish, descendants of the Norse, aren't indigenous to Groenland, but somehow the Eskimos are.
The Québécois aren't native to Québec ( arrived in 1534 ), But somehow the Eskimos are ( expansion to Northern Québec around 1300-1500 ).
Etc.
Thanks. Last time I asked a leftist about it (on Reddit), I was told I was wrong, but they didn't supply a better definition either.
My definition doesn't consider indigenous in places that are non-white "majority" (dominant?), though. Like, the Ainu and certain Chinese groups are considered indigenous, but the Japanese and Han aren't, and neither of those "majority" groups is white.
"Indigenous" refers to anyone in the process of losing at natural selection. It neither refers to those winning (e.g. Han Chinese) or those who have already lost (e.g. the Dorset). It fits the leftist mantra of blind support for the "oppressed" and their need for self-worth derived from slacktivism (they get more dopamine from "supporting" people alive today than people who died hundreds of years ago).
I was going to type something long about the French, but I am wondering if I haven't gone too far trying to apply logic to leftism. As you noted, it's all about the feels. That said, I still think that a main driver of leftist "feels" for a particular group is sympathy directed at, in particular, nonwhites. When it comes to competing nonwhite groups, the more primitive the group is, the more sympathetic a leftist will be. For instance, the San may occupy a higher place on the victimhood totem pole than the Bantu, as their lifestyle is more primitive. Leftists also support Amerinds in South America who practice traditional lifestyles over farmers/ranchers who are only slightly whiter but who employ more modern technology. And they would support the farmers/ranchers over the white or whiter Mestizo ruling class of their country. Being primitive correlates neatly with losing, so leftists can enjoy supporting the losers.
The Dorset "giants" were all gone like 1350, not 1600.
Thanks, I mixed-up expansion order.
The Inuit colonized Greenland before Northern Québec.
But the Norse were in Greenland while the Dorset were still around.
Moreover, there's now evidence that the ancestors of modern day "Native Americans" killed off two existing populations of American residents.
You have to dig, this is one of those un-personed ideas. Essentially, there are sites in the Americas that predate the influx of the current Indians, a lot of those sites are on the East coast of the US and Brazil, and their tech matches tech found in Spain and France.
And when I say predates, I mean by anywhere from 5-10 thousand years older. That means there were migrations to the Americas while glaciers covered the Midwest.
got any links?
The timing and effect of the earliest human arrivals in North America: "The data obtained show that humans were probably present before, during and immediately after the Last Glacial Maximum (about 26.5–19 thousand years ago) [. . .] We also identify the near-synchronous commencement of Beringian, Clovis and Western Stemmed cultural traditions"
Evidence of human occupation in Mexico around the Last Glacial Maximum: "... we present results of recent excavations at Chiquihuite Cave-a high-altitude site in central-northern Mexico-that [. . .] push back dates for human dispersal to the region possibly as early as 33,000-31,000 years ago."
Evidence grows that peopling of the Americas began more than 20,000 years ago: "... evidence that the initial human settlement of the American continent happened earlier than is widely accepted, and some of this evidence suggests that expansion into the continent began at least 10,000 years earlier than was generally suspected."
A single and early migration for the peopling of the Americas supported by mitochondrial DNA sequence data: "Nucleotide diversity analyses [. . .] suggest that Native Americans and Chukchi originated from a single migration to Beringia, probably from east Central Asia, that occurred [. . .] with 95% confidence intervals between ≈22,000 and ≈55,000 years ago."
Pre-Clovis occupation 14,550 years ago at the Page-Ladson site, Florida, and the peopling of the Americas: "... radiocarbon ages show that ~14,550 calendar years ago, people butchered or scavenged a mastodon next to a pond in a bedrock sinkhole within the Aucilla River. This occupation surface was buried by ~4 m of sediment during the late Pleistocene marine transgression, which also left the site submerged."
Evidence of humans in North America during the Last Glacial Maximum: "n a study of exposed outcrops of Lake Otero in White Sands National Park in New Mexico, Bennett et al. reveal numerous human footprints dating to about 23,000 to 21,000 years ago. These finds indicate the presence of humans in North America for approximately two millennia during the Last Glacial Maximum south of the migratory barrier created by the ice sheets to the north."
And, the Clovis wiki page has good information.
So, there were humans here before the most recent wave of Asians-turned-Native Americans, but about 80% of Native Americans trace their genetics back to the most recent wave... not the waves that were in New Mexico, Florida, Alaska, Brazil and the Yukon much earlier. And the decline of the older groups was sudden, and happened roughly when the two groups first encountered each other. Does this sound familiar?
hmmm... younger dryas is all over this
Wow--thanks for the interesting links and info.
Do you have an opinion on Graham Hancock's "America Before"? I haven't read it yet.
Check my other reply in here, I did some digging.
Look up the clovis people.
Shut your lying mouths, BBC. Europe is full of indigenous people. You just want to rob the rest of us of our ancestral homelands.
We didn't just magically appear out of the hyperborean ether, you silly fucks.
That's the whitest injun I've ever seen.
Well at least in a Nordic country it kind of makes sense. American Indians in the Southwest are pretty freakin' white, and I don't know what their excuse is.
See also: 95% of “Indigenous” “activists”in Aus, Canada, etc…
Muh “pattern recognition is racist” doe… 🤔
Oh Australia is the craziest. Abos are like jet black, and "Abos" on the news are indistinguishable from whites.
Yeah, you have real Aboriginals, who generally live in “Remote Communities”, in the “Outback” (generic term essentially meaning a la Wild West or “out there”, I guess). These ones are dark brown at their lightest, dirt poor, live off intergenerational welfare (usually), have poor grasp of English (again, it varies), and generally… Have not integrated “well” into modern society…
Aaaand then you have the activists. They have literally not a single thing in common with the above group, apart from some vague concept of a common ancestry, an enormous chip on their shoulder (fair enough in the case of a, less so for b), and spiritual mumbo jumbo woke “justification” for needing “reparations” and hand-outs… And weird attempts to massacre the English language, invent a pseudo-history, and make both of those things (language, history) their own”. And then force us all to use those definitions…
These are the only things a) and b) have in common.
B) is, with astounding regularity, usually University-educated, upper middle class, blue-eyed white women, sometimes with blonde hair. To the point of being a stereotype, lol…
It’s bad. So, so bad, these days, dude…
Well, sometimes they're fat, blue-haired white women. You know, for the virtue signaling.
See this whole affair: https://independentaustralia.net/australia/australia-display/why-we-need-s18c-racism-hurts-to-the-bone,6747
I would have posted the original Bolt article (because he is right, here), but it has been scrubbed from the internet, it seems…
Absolute bloody madness. And it has gotten much worse since, with a whole new generation of these grifters, lol…
I know this is the automod but u/DomitiusOfMassilia do you have any idea why this was hidden and can you fix it?
The most obvious point aside... why is it bad to force immigrants to assimilate? If you don't want to adopt the host culture, leave the host, you fucking parasite.
It's worship of "diversity," the gift that keeps on giving.
Nice find OP.