On the meaning of “indigenous”
September 1st, 2010 · 13 Comments
Over at CiF we’ve got someone telling us what “indigenous” means.
As with most such things, it’s difficult to offer perfect definitions … however the term is generally used to describe the original inhabitants of a territory prior to its colonization during the last 500 years or so. You see, a lot of the world (all of the Americas, all of Africa, all of Australasia and Oceania, etc.) have been conquered and ruled by Europeans at some point during the last few centuries. This process resulted in the death, displacement and marginalization of many of these conquered peoples. Even after these countries gained independence from the European powers, the original inhabitants still remained within a marginal social and economic position. Thus Quechua-speakers in Peru are often poorer and politically weaker than Spanish-speakers and people of a European ancestry.
These people are what is meant when we talk about the “indigenous” peoples of the world. It therefore doesn’t apply to Britain because it relates specifically to the experience of having been colonized, which did not happen to Britain or its people.
My response:
If the definition of “indigenous” is to have been subjected to colonisation then certainly England was in 1066 (and perhaps before that, in the North at least, around 800 with the Vikings, the whole country again around 400/500 with the Angles, Saxons and Jutes etc).
And Wales was colonised by the English from 12 th cent to 15th, Scotland could arguably be said to have been colonised again and Ireland most certainly was: Cromwell in Wexford and Drogheda is difficult to describe in any manner other than as a violent colonisation: to say nothing of the Plantation of the North.
Entirely possible to extend this over other parts of Europe as well: the suppression of Occidan and Breton as languages, Madrid’s relationship with certain parts of what is now Spain like Cataluna etc etc etc. Prussia’s creation of Germany anyone? The Soviet actions in the Baltic States?
Neither colonisation, and therefore “indignous”, are events or words that should be reserved for what Europeans did to non-Europeans.
6 comments:
Nationalist leaders should be telling the British people to have more children.
The old Nat Front (the decent one of the 70's) did this and i'm one of those who did just that, and i know there were many of my colleagues who had large families.
But for some reason i have never seen the BNP doing this.
Recent DNA studies indicate that all the invasions made little difference to our genetic make-up.
Indeed many of the Germanic tribes were related to the original peoples who travelled here when Britain was connected to the European mainland.
If anyone is interested in a good read i'd recommend 'the origins of the British' by Stephen Oppenheimer.
It is heavy going but well worth it.
"These people are what is meant when we talk about the “indigenous” peoples of the world. It therefore doesn’t apply to Britain because it relates specifically to the experience of having been colonized, which did not happen to Britain or its people."
Indigenous peoples only exist as consequence of colonisation? LMAO. They really are desperate now - what a pathetic comment. Anyways the comment is interesting in respect that it reveals a new angle that the genocidalist, self-loathing, braindead, leftie scum are using now that they realise that there are indeed indigenous British folk - a concept they cannot possibly accept.
Anyways, at the time of the Roman invasion of Britain the native population was between 1 and 2 million according to Paul Johnson and possibly as much as 3 million according to Guy de la Bedoyere.
Now, using this concept that indigenous "is generally used to describe the original inhabitants of a territory prior to its colonization during the last 500 years or so." then this means that the Celts qualify as indigenous British because they first arrived in Britain as early as 700BC, but in larger numbers about 500BC, this being the time generally agreed to mark their arrival proper in Britain. So it was not until 500 years later that the Romans conquered the Celtic Britain.
It's even more insane than I first thought:
"[indigenous] is generally used to describe the original inhabitants of a territory prior to its colonization during the last 500 years or so."
I made my previous comment from misunderstanding the meaning of that quote. I thought he was stating that a people must have been established for 500 years, but no... it's ever crazier. He is actually asserting that indigenous can only be claimed by those who have bee colonised in the last 500 years! What incredible nonsense, this is obviously a direct attempt to bypass the fact that there are indigenous British. Typical leftie nonsense and shifting of goal-posts.
As far as I am aware the Chinese have not been "colonized" [sic] for at least 3000 years - are they not indigenous then?
What utter, utter bollocks these leftie fuckwits come out with.
The Japanese were never colonized. If they aren't indigenous what are they? Are the small bands of mixed-race Ainu the only true Japanese?
Ethiopia was only colonized for a few years(1936-41) by the Italians. Is 5 years enough for them to get indigenous qualified?
THe Bantus migrated to what is now South Africa and dispossessed the Khoisan-Hottentot-Bushmen. Do the latter groups get any special favoritism for being the true indigenous (and non-white) people of South Africa. Probably some rhetorical flourishes, at best.
Post a Comment