So under this definition none of the groups that the European explorers encountered were Indigenous since they weren't the first ones to live on the land. Only the very first (probably extinct) group that lived on the land 20000 years ago gets that title.
produced, growing, living, or occurring natively or naturally in a particular region or environment
Living in is not an actual term of being indigenous, but the rest is accurate
of or relating to the earliest known inhabitants of a place and especially of a place that was colonized by a now-dominant group
That’s settling or immigration, not indigenous, a settler is someone that comes from somewhere else to live, indigenous means you have been there since your birth. “Indigenous” people didn’t spring up out of the soil here, they immigrated and settled, making them non-indigenous the same as everyone else.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1993, pg 1151
First Reference:
Native:
Not introduced directly or indirectly according to historical record or scientific analysis into a particular land or region or environment from the outside <Indians were the indigenous inhabitants of America><species of plants that are indigenous to that country>
Originating or developing or produced naturally in a particular land or region or environment <an interesting example of indigenous architecture><a people with a rich indigenous culture>
Of, relating to, or designated for natives <the establishment of indigenous schools>
Second Reference:
Inborn, Innate, inherent <a type of behavior that is indigenous to human beings>
The issue here is that concept of "introduced directly or indirectly" I don't see how Europeans were any less directly or indirectly introduced than Indians. Both literally explored themselves into the continent at different time frames. Frankly, I would argue modern mass migrants are more directly introduced from the outside by massive internal government programs that basically try to subsidize their arrival. Whereas, colonization and settlement in many places wasn't aggressively directed. With the Spanish, yeah, that's more of a military invasion that was directed at certain times, but not with the French.
Definition 1-2 could both technically apply to Europeans or "Indians", as I pointed out elsewhere in this thread: Americans are the earliest known inhabitants of the United States. If you say the English are indigenous to England, then it means the English are not indigenous to America, and English developments in America are not English. But then, the US is not English (rather explicitly). If American cultural developments are not naturally produced or developed from within the US, where did they come from? If there is no limiting principle to this concept (if Americans live in the US for 10,000 years no development within 10,000 years of human development is naturally occurring in America), then we create a definition where it is effectively impossible to find even one indigenous people, even among the Indians. The Iroquois could not possibly have been an indigenous people as the confederation was created after many unifying their literal confederation of tribes, including absorbing tribes that were displaced from other areas.
So under this definition none of the groups that the European explorers encountered were Indigenous since they weren't the first ones to live on the land. Only the very first (probably extinct) group that lived on the land 20000 years ago gets that title.
That’s why they added in “or relating to” it’s weasel wording
Living in is not an actual term of being indigenous, but the rest is accurate
That’s settling or immigration, not indigenous, a settler is someone that comes from somewhere else to live, indigenous means you have been there since your birth. “Indigenous” people didn’t spring up out of the soil here, they immigrated and settled, making them non-indigenous the same as everyone else.
Basically, they're swallowing Injun mythology whole, in a very Creationist fundamentalist way.
The OED (Enclyclopedic ed., 1991, p723) defines it as:
Indigenous adj.
That means that both, Native Americans and European descendants born in 'Murica are indigenous.
Same goes for anyone else born here.
Fuck Merriam-Webster.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1993, pg 1151
First Reference: Native:
Second Reference:
The issue here is that concept of "introduced directly or indirectly" I don't see how Europeans were any less directly or indirectly introduced than Indians. Both literally explored themselves into the continent at different time frames. Frankly, I would argue modern mass migrants are more directly introduced from the outside by massive internal government programs that basically try to subsidize their arrival. Whereas, colonization and settlement in many places wasn't aggressively directed. With the Spanish, yeah, that's more of a military invasion that was directed at certain times, but not with the French.
Definition 1-2 could both technically apply to Europeans or "Indians", as I pointed out elsewhere in this thread: Americans are the earliest known inhabitants of the United States. If you say the English are indigenous to England, then it means the English are not indigenous to America, and English developments in America are not English. But then, the US is not English (rather explicitly). If American cultural developments are not naturally produced or developed from within the US, where did they come from? If there is no limiting principle to this concept (if Americans live in the US for 10,000 years no development within 10,000 years of human development is naturally occurring in America), then we create a definition where it is effectively impossible to find even one indigenous people, even among the Indians. The Iroquois could not possibly have been an indigenous people as the confederation was created after many unifying their literal confederation of tribes, including absorbing tribes that were displaced from other areas.
This is how we get to silly comments like a people who migrated from the Asian Steppe are the only European indigenous people
As a result, the concept of "indigenous" is very dependent on the definition of the area being defined.
admitting that americans are an indigenous people.
The earliest known inhabitants of the US are Americans.
Yeah, from the Arctic Circle to Tierra Del Fuego.
From the Burger King to the Dairy Queen.
Merriam Webster also thinks Vitamin D is a vaccine for the common cold. Into tbe trash it goes.
It is trying to formalize an idiomatic use of the term for political reasons. A is sufficient but should begin with "occurring"
Relying on contemporary dictionaries for definitions is either a last resort or the mark of a lazy writer.
This is a dumb thing to argue about.