[angry Basque noises]
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (46)
sorted by:
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.