Generally when we talk about indigenous peoples we mean “the ones who were there before the area was colonized by [new majority group] in the relatively recent past.” In Europe, virtually every square inch of land was colonized by somebody who is now ethnically and culturally indistinguishable from the incumbents - but as noted above, I doubt anyone quibbles with the “special” status of the Samii. It doesn’t make any sense to distinguish between British people and Celts, because with a very few exceptions nobody knows who the Celts are. It’s certainly not as though they are fighting to preserve their traditional way of life or something.
Thank you for this; the addition of “relatively recent past” makes your point clear. You are wrong about the fight to preserve their traditional way of life, though. In Wales and Brittany, a lot of the cultural preservation is subsumed into language issues, but it is still there and still quite important. I know less about the Basques. The minority cultures of Europe are minorities because they have been conquered and subsequently colonized, and the only differences are time depth and (for the New World) lack of decimation by disease around the time of colonization.
I don’t disagree with that, but I think your examples kind of prove my point. Who are the “indigenous” people of Brittany? The pre-Roman Celts? The Brythonic people who mostly displaced them? The Franks?
Well, that’s why your definition is useful. According to your definition, there are no indigenous people in Europe barring the northern and easternmost fringes.
My definition would be that the indigenous group is the group with the longest-standing cultural occupation of a given geographical area, so I’d say Europe is full of indigenous peoples. I don’t think either of us is wrong, but it’s good to clarify terms.
That’s fine, but what’s the point in identifying indigenous groups who really aren’t distinguishable from everyone else? that’s just pigeonholing for pigeonholing’s sake. If the Basque people want language rights and self-determination and so on, more power to them. But I don’t think we need to go looking for indigenous peoples who aren’t seeking any of those things.
Funny thing about the Sami, but archaeologically and linguistically speaking, they are a rather late people in their homeland. Earliest evidence of settlement in Lapland is unequivocally southern (or more precisely, southeastern) in origin, hailing from present-day Central Russia, while the Sami language was also a southeastern development, and spread into [proto-]Sami area not until some 2 - 3 000 years ago. Even historically speaking, there are areas in Lapland where Finns have settled before the Sami did, truly a case of ‘claiming untouched land’. This is a source of strife in today’s Lapland, where, unlike in the Americas, aboriginal views on origins don’t exactly mesh with the scientific and historical data.
I think you’ve made my point. These groups are NOT indistinguishable from everyone else, and the fact that you think they are is colonialism, pure and simple. Further, after a couple of centuries of colonialism, the difference between Canadians or Americans and their indigenous peoples isn’t that great, either, in terms of material culture and access to technology. So I throw it back at you (but nicely, because this is really interesting): what is the point of identifying indigenous peoples, full stop? Is it:
- minority cultures in need of help
- something to prop up our hoary definition of “race”
- someplace to put our colonizers’ guilt
- something I haven’t thought of?
The Lakota aren’t going back to roaming the plains in search of buffalo. The Irish aren’t going back to polygamy and polytheism. At least, not in any significant numbers. People of European descent aren’t pulling out of Africa and the Americas. So what’s the point in distinguishing those colonized 1500–1900 from those colonized from 1000–1500? Does there have to be a significant technological difference at the point of contact to count?
No. I think you misunderstand me. All I am saying is that it’s up to indigenous people to define their own needs.
I went and looked up some pictures of Sami people, and it’s difficult to see them as anything other than a bunch of rural white folk. I’m waiting for the State of Pennsylvania to grant me a “Certified Pennsylvania Dutch” card that entitles me to a 20% discount on the Penna Turnpike and gives me a legal process to prevent Irish-Americans from snatching up all the best land in central PA.
I think aboriginal status has a big political bent to it that is not entirely accounted for by genetics and anthropology. Native Americans, Australian Aboriginals, etc. are not white and there is an obvious “we are different from them” mentality. If I bump into a random person of British heritage, how would I know whether or not he is a Scottish Highlander, descendant of Romans, pure Saxon, Viking, or a grandchild of Belgian immigrants who settled in Manchester in 1910 to work in a cotton mill? It’s certainly not going to be obvious just with a glance, or maybe not even obvious after getting to know them. I’d have to dig.
Good point. European history seems to mostly consist of “These bunch of white people conquered this other group of white people, then they all got intermarried and ended up as their own country full of white people”.
Well, not to open up a whole other can of worms, but there are definitely similar issues in at least North America with native groups’ claims/beliefs about how long they’ve been living in a particular area not really agreeing with the archaeological (or even sometimes historical) record. It’s usually not much of an issue but it occasionally is, perhaps most notably in the Kennewick Man case.
To add on to the Wales/Cornwall connection in Britain, the etymology comes from the Germanic word walhaz, meaning foreigner (the -wall in Cornwall). See also Celtic nations. It turns out this idea may have some basis in genetics.
That said, the concept of a ‘native Briton’ is one nobody really cares about beyond racist nutjobs like the BNP who famously claim that black Welshmen are a fiction.
The Walloons have the same Germanic etymology and are a similar distinct peoples.
So what? If you look at older photos there’s more marked difference, but they’re not afforded indigenous status because they had darker skin, they’re afforded indigenous status because the Scandinavian majority did things like (in Norway) deciding all real property should have a registered owner, any land not having a registered owner should be the property of the state, oh, and if you didn’t speak Norwegian you couldn’t own land.
When were the Pennsylvania Dutch discriminated against in the law of the land where they resided, and to what extent?
What’s your point? And perhaps it’s better served in a thread in GD now that your original question has been answered?
You have to understand that racism in the scandinavian countries traditionally is much more restrictive about who is “one of us” and who is “one of them”. The word “white” is rarely used. Someone from Greece or Italy would probably count as white in the US, whereas in Sweden they would look and be treated as “not Swedes”.
Point is, they are not ethnic Swedes. They had their own language, own religion, style of dress and lifestyle, and they did look slightly different even if you can’t see it. Only a few generations ago many lived a nomadic lifestyle, moving with the reindeer.
Add to that a history of discrimination. Children were sent away to boarding schools away from their families, where they were only allowed to speak Swedish. Some were forced to relocate. The institute of racial biology took an almost perverse interest in them, measuring their sculls and robbing their graves for bones. They also forced many to pose for photographs, sometimes stripping them nude. The racial slur “Lappdjävel” was extremely common.
In Germany, there are two ethnic groups that enjoy special protection by law: The Danish minority of Southern Schleswig and the Sorb minority in Brandenburg and Saxony. The Sorbs are a Western Slavic people (in fact, they are the westernmost Slavic people in Europe).
Both groups aren’t really visible since they are more or less assimilated.
Dunno why the Sorbs would be considered indigenous as they arrived around the 6th century AD. I think that’s pushing it. In North, Central, and South America and Australia, it’s pretty easy to identify a group of indingenous peoples.
But, at what point do I get to become indigenous? After another group of people take over, or what?
I believe the Norse were there before them. There have been several settlemnts of Greenland that died out, but the Norse and Inuit did overlap for a period.
I believe Scandinavia is still populated by the groups that arrived as the glaciers retreated.
This differs from what I have heard. The Saami people are of European origin, but went through a period of genetic isolation during the time the “European look” developed. There is also a genetic influence from Siberia.
The issue is confused by the fact that the Saami language was named for the pople, but it is not orginal with the Saami, it displaced the original language during the iron age.
The Saami, as the Komsa, can be traced back in the area for more than 10 000 years, to the 8000-11000 BC period.
The vast majority of people who identifies as Saami today has a heavy Scandinavian influence. To the point of many being blonde and blue-eyed. You need to look at old pictures from 1900 or erlier. Observe the difference in apperance! And even the 1900 photographs show people with some Scandinavian admixture.
The Saami are undoubtedly indigenous to the area on the macro scale. On the local level things can be a bit more confused. Historically, the Norse and the Saami had very different lifestyles, the Saami being nomadic reindeer hearders, the Norse being cattle and agriculture people at the very limit of their range. And because they were about as far north as that lifestyle could go, they did not displace the nomadic people of the area.
When the climate have been warm, the Norse strategy pays off better, and the Norse range expands. When it cools, the Saami are better adapted, the Norse abandoned farms that no longer yielded enough and the Saami moved in. The two groups have had “time share” on the costal land for millennia.
Do the Travelers predate Cromwell? I’d heard they didn’t.
Do the Lapps count?
Not quite so. My reply that you quoted is based on cutting-edge archaeological data, still in the progress of gaining exposure. But the fact is that the oldest settlement site in Finnish (Northern) Lapland is a site unequivocally belonging to the Kunda-Butovo culture complex that covered Western and Central Russia and the Eastern Baltic in the Mesolithic, completely separate and different from the Komsa. Further, several early sites in inland Norwegian Northern Lapland have recently been regocnized as belonging to Kunda-Butovo, as well; suspect, but as-of-yet unexcavated Kunda-Butovo sites are found even on the Swedish side of the border. None of this was known a mere decade ago, and as such hasn’t yet entered the general literature on Lapland or the Saami.
The Komsa culture often seen as a precursor to the Saami is strictly a coastal culture - it never entered Lapland beyond the coastline, where many of the later Saami culture(s) flourished. The first inhabitants of the vast interior Lapland were Kunda-Butovo groups, not the Komsa or any other. In other words, the “most indigenous” people in interior Lapland are southeastern pioneers, hailing from present-day Central Russia. This paints a whole different picture than what was previously known, and still is generally assumed correct.
Oddly, there are some in Texas as well.
It’s one theory regarding their origin, however per Wiki :