Many countries colonized by European powers grant cultural and often legal status to certain people who are considered “native”, “indigenous”, and/or “aboriginal”. Obvious examples are Native Americans of the US, the First Nations of Canada, the Maori of New Zealand, Australian Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders of Australia, and others.
When I look at the history of Europe, I see many parallels to this. Various European peoples invaded other areas of Europe and subjugated the natives and had some success in obliterating or marginalizing their culture. The main difference, of course, is that the “natives” were of the same race as the conquerors according to many modern definitions of “race”.
To what extent is there recognition of native/indigenous/aboriginal status in Europe in such a way as to grant substantive legal rights or legal recognition that non-“natives” do not have? E.g. are there university scholarships set aside for students in the UK who identify as Pictish? Can you get aboriginal land rights or priority in government employment for demonstrating to the Italian government that you have Etruscan ancestry? Can you get an identification card from the German government that identifies you as a member of the Funnelbeaker Culture?
I don’t know that much but the Basque people immediately come to mind. The Basque language isn’t even related to other European languages (it is the last of the pre Indo-European languages left in Europe).
The government of the UK has created special protections for the Welsh language (albeit after centuries of ignoring it or trying to eradicate it). Of course, the Welsh and Celtic peoples generally are no more “native” to Great Britain than anyone else.
My Finnish colleagues go on and on about the sensitivity with which they are compelled to show when talking about and dealing with “native” people in Northern Scandinavia. The name Lappish seems to be the equivalent of Red Indian in the North American context i.e. not politically correct. They are more properly called Sami.
The whole thing seems very similar to the Native American/First Canadians issues. The natives being crowded out and marginalized by white people. I find it a little strange that the Ethnic Finns refer to themselves (and Swedes and Nirwegians) as “white” because I can’t imagine the Sami as anything other than White.
The Finns I’m familiar with are very much right wingers in the Finnish context. Always whining about the excessive welfare state. In the USAian context they’d be solid liberals. 100% in favor of universal health care, equalization of educational opportunities, mandated parental leave policies, etc.
It seems quite fair to me that the Sami are afforded indigenous status. Although the interactions with “the white man” goes back longer than for other groups, and although they due to that longer relationship are less homogeneous than the reindeer herding stereotype would indicate, they’ve suffered some of the same indignities.
Through no fault of their own they found themselves defined as part of nation states dominated by, to them, foreign cultures.
The majority in those states discriminate(d) against them, introduced laws that limited their way of life, consider(ed) them second class citizens, and, in the case of Norway of just decades ago, tried a policy of assimilation denying them full access to their heritage.
For instance the only allowed language in schools from 1850-1959 was Norwegian. And even after that, legally mandated school meant kids from semi-nomadic herder families were forced to attend boarding schools most of the year, away from their family. Heavy discrimination and ridicule also meant Sami people “voluntarily” abandoned their language and culture to fit in.
A good overview is provided by the Council of Europe (not to be confused with the EU, it covers far more countries, extending well into Asia), which operates a [framework for minority rights](framework for minority rights).
No special scholarships or recognition on the basis of Basque ancestry, though. And, both because the Basque regions are generally well-off and back to being “immigration areas” now that ETA’s threat seems to be on the wane* (thus making such a notion unnecessary and racist) and because one of the worst aspects of the systematic muddling** of the definition of “Basque” was “the Rh people”***, anybody trying to come up with one needs wide shoulders and a strong stomach; he’d be called all kinds of names except pretty ones.
right now the lowest unemployment rates in Spain correspond to Madrid, Euskadi and Navarre, with the exact order changing from month to month; I don’t have data handy for the French Basque Country but at first sight they seem to be doing fine thank you
** “Basque” when speaking about people used to refer to ancestry; starting in the late 1970s, there was a systematic “no true Scotsman” campaign according to which you couldn’t call yourself Basque unless you 1) were born in the geographical Euskal Herria, 2) spoke Basque, 3) were a Basquist, 4) had Basque ancestry. This muddling now appears to be receding, thank Jaun Goikoa.
*** the Rh people were those who required all four requisites
Aren’t all the traditional Basque strongholds way up in the mountains? They can’t be doing that well economically, can they? Or are they all ski resorts?
That’s the only group that came to mind for me after reading the OP. I think any other “indigenous” groups have been effectively absorbed into the dominant cultures. There are probably some in Eastern Russia, but I would consider that part to be Asia, and not Europe.
Euskal Herria straddles the Western end of the Pyrinees and its southern part (the Spanish part) is known as the “high” part in the “highlands” sense, but that’s because it’s so freaking mountainous that the hills go all the way down to the sea. The whole area is mountains including the seaside. Both Bilbao and San Sebastián have “uphill”, “downhill” and “sidehill” among the words used to give directions; I’m not as familiar with the local speech around Biarritz but despite being on the so-called-“flat” French side it’s equally hilly.
As for what exactly you mean by “traditional Basque strongholds” I have no idea, but there’s certainly more to the place than Aralar Chapel. And only two ski areas on the Spanish side, which happen to be Nordic (walk-skiing, rather than the “rush downhill” type). I understand there’s also some skiing on the French side but a quick search finds only references to “good skiing weather”, no specific sites.
Basque country is doing pretty good on the tourism front. Plus all the cash to be made from their Spaniards and Frenchies neighbours coming in over the week end just to buy cartons of tax-free cigarettes and cases of beer (or is it merely less taxed ? I dunno, I only been there once and I was 15. Heavenly food though, I remember that much.)
Not tax-free in either place (that would have been Andorra, which is closer to the other end of the Pyrinees), but one of the things that causes price variations between both sides of the French and Spanish border is the taxation levels. Which products are worth hopping over to buy varies through time. If I understand your post correctly you’re using “the Basque Country” to refer only to the Spanish region which currently goes by Euskadi: it’s still full of Spaniards as of last check and gets the same taxation levels as neighboring Spanish provinces (the taxation systems for Euskadi and Navarre are different from those of the rest of Spain for income tax, but the % ranges must be the same and VAT/luxury goods taxes are national).
Well, sure, go back far enough and humans are “indigenous” only in the Rift Valley of Africa. If you consider relative arrival, Britain’s Celts probably are “more” indigenous than its Normans.
Would you care to explain this? The Welsh and [Insular] Celtic peoples generally are, in fact, a good deal more “native” to Great Britain, in that their culture* was found on the islands from the first historical records available. They certainly predate the earliest historical records of most native North American groups, and they certainly predate the arrival of the English, thus “more native.”
Unless you mean that English culture, as distinct from Continental Saxon etc., evolved on the island of Britain, as did Celtic cultures, and thus they’re equally native to the place, just with different time depths. That’s a valid point of view but its logic would make generic Americans and Cherokees equally native to the USA.
Or unless you mean everyone migrated from somewhere else, in which case again, your only argument is a difference in time depth. How long does one have to be in a place to be “native”? The Welsh have been in Wales for over 2000 years; other than “on the continent,” how many North American groups can demonstrate that kind of geographic continuity? And of course, every culture that exists has some sort of continuity with the one that came before it.
This is a long way of saying I call racism. Not you, personally, but general usage—there exists some weird idea that you can’t be white and native (or “modern” and native) at the same time, despite clear evidence to the contrary.
(technically, their direct antecedent culture, since culture changes over time)
No, I meant the whole cultural region - Biaritz is very popular a summer destination among us French, for example. I just had a brainfart on the local (for large values of “local”, evidently) tax haven thingamabob.
Of course, the marginal cultures you find in some colonized areas are a byproduct of the huge difference between the original and the invading culture. Over a century or two, the locals did not have time to adapt to the new way of life before they were pushed aside. the ones that have survived the best are the ones in marginal lands - the far north of Canada, the deserts of Australia and southwestern USA, the jungles of South America where the land was not friendly to agriculture, and so did not attract a flood of invading farmers.
Europe is the opposite situation. Any separate ethnic group (does Europe have different ethnic groups?) learned from their neighbours the same agricultural and technological practices (or learned the hard way at the losing end of a war). Unless you count the nomads of the frozen Lappland north, there are no vast wastelands or isolated highlands, full of aborigines, or bedouins, or Incas. So you may have Basques, or Sicilians, or Corsicans, or a dozen such groups - but none were “left behind” in the march of progress and there’s been millenia of interbreeding.
Ireland does have certain tax concessions and other favourable administrative arrangements for designated districts in which the dominant language is (or is supposed to be) Irish rather than English. The policy is to support the Irish language and associated culture, which is of course indigenous to Ireland. But there is no ethnic/racial element to any of these arrangement; they are all defined geographically.
Then excuse me, but you just earned a vigorous smack with a soft object on account of using Basque as opposite to French and Spaniard. That’s called “buying the re-definition” in polite terms. I know you didn’t mean to buy such sick cows, please don’t!
Yes, but they tend to range in color and hair between “curly clouds of dark-brown hair, dark-brown eyes and brown skin which tans easily” and “glows in the dark”.
There are some ethnic groups which are “left behind” and which currently have specific scholarships or preferential access to them, but it’s on account of being groups identified as “socially disadvantaged”, not on account of being “aboriginal”. Spain’s Roma apparently didn’t get here until the late Middle Ages, but they’re considered socially disadvantaged so they may get “extra points” for things such as access to high-demand schools, school lunch scholarships or lowered-price student accomodations.
(or is it merely less taxed ? I dunno, I only been there once and I was 15. Heavenly food though, I remember that much.)