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.
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.