I wot ? I bought cows ? Where do you expect me to put them ?!
I think there could be some mistranslation going on my part - in French we say “le pays Basque” to refer to the geographical area (which includes both the French bit and the Spanish bit). Even if it’s not its own country in the nation-state sense of the word “pays”, and regardless of where one stands on the whole autonomy issue.
But it’s not specific to the Basque cultural identity : “Pays” in that sense just means “area”, much like there’s a pays Limousin around the town of Limoges for instance. Even though there’s no Limousin ethnic group, cultural identity beyond *more *great food, or a unique language (even if they do talk funny :)).
Hence, my usage of “Basque country”.
Is that the bad re-definition you’re talking about ?
No, the one under which Basque is incompatible with any currently-standing nationality as it requires being from the Basque country, a Basque-speaker and a nationalist. The same people who came up with it would have used the expression “their French and Spanish neighbors” in an exclusive sense: to them, Frenchmen and Spaniards either live outside the Basque country or are called maketos. It may be a matter of coincidental bad phrasing, but I wouldn’t have found it irritating at all if you hadn’t specified “their French and Spanish neighbors”: rather than specific as you meant it to be, to someone who went from being Basque and Navarrese to thirty years of being told that was impossible it sounds exclusive.
The Celts were not the first human inhabitants British Isles. They were invaders in their time, just like the Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, etc. were later. Just like Europeans wer in North America, come to that. Heck, the Celts were probably not even the first invaders of Britain. The first Homo Sapiens, the Cro-Magnons, were here about 33,000 years ago. The Celts did not arrive until somewhere around the 6th century BC. On standard accounts, the Beaker People arrived and took over during the bronze age, some time in the third millenium BC (although Wikipedia says it is now disputed whether this really was an invasion, as opposed to technological developments among already indigenous people), to be followed by the Celts in the iron age, but there were probably many waves of culturally distinct new peoples who arrived between the first Cro-Magnons and the Beaker People.
I have some reason to believe that I myself am descended from, and display some of the physical traits of, the original paleolithic Cro-Magnon inhabitants of Britain. Back in the 1960s or ‘70s, one of the British quality Sunday papers (either the Sunday Times or The Observer) ran a feature in its colour supplement about the different (white) peoples of the Britain, who had arrived at different times in history or prehistory (Beaker People, Celts, Picts, Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, and several more I can’t remember). In addition, for each such group, the article had a photo of a (then) present day British person who allegedly had a physical appearance typical of that associated with each of these “races”. There was also a map showing which of these races was still predominant in different areas of the country. The smallest region on the map was in the valleys of South Wales, where, so it said, there were still people who retained the look typical of the original “old stone age” inhabitants of Britain. There was a photo of one of the men from this region. He looked remarkably like my father. My father, and his ancestors, came from South Wales. I, as many people who knew him have remarked, look remarkably like my father did at my age. (Most notably, he, and I, and the man in the photo, have similarly and quite distinctively shaped heads.)
I know it is not very scientific, and probably based on archeology of which is now partly discredited, but I like to believe it. I am a true Briton. My people have been here longer than anyone else. The rest of you fucking immigrants can sod off back to where you came from! :mad: (And if you won’t, I want the protections and privileges due to me as a member of the only truly indigenous British minority.)
Oh, that ! Well, as I said, I had a hiccup in the old noodle and the “Basque country” and “Andorra” brain folders merged for a moment. Including autonomous nation state and tax haven status, hence the neighbours visiting part. I assure you, I’m no Basque separatist hardliner or anything of the sort
In addition to the first part of what njtt said - the Celts weren’t the first ones in Britain - there really aren’t any more Celtic people. Ever group to invade Britain has interbred with every other. By way of comparison, most native populations are genetically and culturally distinct from the majority wherever they are.
Well, it’s not part of North America, and it’s not a continent. Where else would you put it?
ETA: On further review, some authorities say it is part of North America.
Strictly speaking, Greenland was never in the EEC, or at least wasn’t a member state. It was “in” as a subdivision of Denmark at the time. It’s still a political subdivision of Denmark, of course, but now it’s largely autonomous.
For those saying the Celts weren’t the first people in Britain (which I don’t dispute): doesn’t the argue against ANY group being indigenous? The Navajo, for example, are certain NOT indigenous by this definition, and most of North America has a tenuous claim. The first people to pass through Oregon may well have gone on to Uruguay. Who knows? What we DO know is that genetic continuity is not cultural continuity. The English are genetic descendants of the pre-Roman peoples of Britain, so in that sense, yeah, but then, so am I and most of North America.
Could somebody please just define what it means to be Indigenous? Then you could apply the same test to any group and see if it qualifies. I’m having trouble seeing a logical argument that allows the Navajo but disallows the Welsh or the Basques.
What does “not part of” mean here? Not on the continental shelf? I don’t know if it is on the North American shelf or not (actually I’d be rather surprised if it isn’t), but it sure as hell isn’t on the European shelf. Either it is a continent unto itself (which I have never heard seriously suggested) or, like most islands, it “belongs” to the continent it is closest to, i.e., North America.
There is a very good case for designating as part of North America, if there is any case for designating it as part of Europe it is a terrible one (see below).
By that criterion, so are the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, most of South and Central America . . . . (Actually, most of those places are way more European than Greenland, given that about 88% of the population of Greenland are Inuit.)
Also, is the last group to arrive the least indigenous, or the only one that’s not indigenous?
It’s offensive to say it’s Neanderthals for Europe and living peoples for the rest of the world. Why should Europe be on a different standard? Why are they exceptional?
)