[angry Basque noises]
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (46)
sorted by:
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.
The Dorset "giants" were all gone like 1350, not 1600.
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.
Look up the clovis people.