NationStates Jolt Archive

Question is when does a group of people become indigenous to a particular area? We associate time in a area as being important in the consideration of a group of people being native to an area. Is there a steadfast set of rules? Is it just up to political correctness of the day? The reason I say this is because another thread brought this question to my brain along with an disagreement I had with a Polynesian on Oahu claiming they were native Hawaiian.

What are some of the opinions on when a people gets to claim "native" status to a particular area?

when its people no longer remember their ancestors living anywhere else.

when its people no longer remember their ancestors living anywhere else.

That is one huge gray area. I personally have no idea where some of my ancestors come from then being from a particular part of the US.

Question is when does a group of people become indigenous to a particular area? We associate time in a area as being important in the consideration of a group of people being native to an area. Is there a steadfast set of rules? Is it just up to political correctness of the day? The reason I say this is because another thread brought this question to my brain along with an disagreement I had with a Polynesian on Oahu claiming they were native Hawaiian.

What are some of the opinions on when a people gets to claim "native" status to a particular area?

by polynesian do you mean that he or his remembered ancestors came from a different pacific island group?

by polynesian do you mean that he or his remembered ancestors came from a different pacific island group?

No what I mean is scientific evidence. However one thing I have noticed about the Polynesian culture in Hawaii they can be considered very racist of other groups including whites, Japanese and the such. They are quick to label anyone outside of their group as outsiders. When in fact they are only a generation or two away from Samoa or some other Polynesian outcrop in the South Pacific. They will even do it to generations of whites or Japanese that have lived on the islands longer then their own families.


However once you get to know them they are some of the nicest people. Very odd how the two situations coexist amongst the group.

That is one huge gray area. I personally have no idea where some of my ancestors come from then being from a particular part of the US.

nah, doesnt matter.

assuming for a moment that you are an american of obvious european descent as i am (if not, it doesnt much matter, just go along with me on this) its obvious that you are not "native american" because you and the rest of the majority of american citizens have european ancestors.

whereas "native americans" have no cultural memory of living anywhere but in the land that is now the united states. they are native or indigenous. if a canadian indian or a mexican indian moves to the US and settles down, they are NOT "native americans" no matter how much they resemble those that we identify as such.

nah, doesnt matter.

assuming for a moment that you are an american of obvious european descent as i am (if not, it doesnt much matter, just go along with me on this) its obvious that you are not "native american" because you and the rest of the majority of american citizens have european ancestors.

whereas "native americans" have no cultural memory of living anywhere but in the land that is now the united states. they are native or indigenous. if a canadian indian or a mexican indian moves to the US and settles down, they are NOT "native americans" no matter how much they resemble those that we identify as such.

I am of "European decent" however I do disagree a bit with how you are defining "Native American". That term describes any native group in the America's. However I do understand what context you do mean.

There are some tribes that do overlap international boundries and would be interesting how that would play out.

What does it matter if they claim that they are native or not, unless they gain some benefit besides sympathy then I might as well say I'm a native.

If it does matter than i would say living there longer than anyone else.

when they were there first.

when they were there first.

then there's almost nobody who's native to the place they live now (at least not in Europe) and most people are a mixture of "people" (ethnicities?)

It also depends on what scale you look (village/country/continent etc)

it's whatever god says it is

No what I mean is scientific evidence. However one thing I have noticed about the Polynesian culture in Hawaii they can be considered very racist of other groups including whites, Japanese and the such. They are quick to label anyone outside of their group as outsiders. When in fact they are only a generation or two away from Samoa or some other Polynesian outcrop in the South Pacific. They will even do it to generations of whites or Japanese that have lived on the islands longer then their own families.


However once you get to know them they are some of the nicest people. Very odd how the two situations coexist amongst the group.

are you saying that you denied to this guy that as a native hawaiian he is a native hawaiian?

then there's almost nobody who's native to the place they live now (at least not in Europe) and most people are a mixture of "people" (ethnicities?)

It also depends on what scale you look (village/country/continent etc)

pretty much. tbh i think the 'native question' is irrelevant in a region like europe, there's been so much mixing over thousands of years that the term 'native european' has no meaning. also, the term native is very much linked with colonialism and imperialism - natives are anyone who was there before the place was 'discovered' and subsequently settled from the beginning of europe's age of overseas empire building.

frankly, i don't like the term. it has the effect of 'othering' what it refers to.

I am of "European decent" however I do disagree a bit with how you are defining "Native American". That term describes any native group in the America's. However I do understand what context you do mean.

There are some tribes that do overlap international boundries and would be interesting how that would play out.

i dont think many canadian aboriginals call themselves native americans.

and yeah, there are definite overlaps. but they are not important to this discussion really.

the tohono o'odham reservation in arizona straddles the border (im pretty sure thats the one) it causes them all sorts of problems from keeping families apart to international drug runners using their land to cross the border.

interesting but not the issue at hand.

or maybe the definition is "as long as no one else has an older claim to indigenous status"

then there's almost nobody who's native to the place they live now (at least not in Europe) and most people are a mixture of "people" (ethnicities?)

It also depends on what scale you look (village/country/continent etc)

arent there sometimes people who feel that "native belgians" are being overrun by ... oh i dont know ... the islamic hordes from turkey? or do y'all have old colonies where people of non-white races have the right to immigrate to belgium and it pisses people off?

are you saying that you denied to this guy that as a native hawaiian he is a native hawaiian?

Well the situation we were in is that "she" was claiming to be a native Hawaiian when I already knew and maybe she didn't realize that she was first generation to be born in Hawaii in her family.
A little background info here. I was visiting a friend of mine while in Hawaii. I met him years ago in the service and he was a white guy from Hawaii. As he says his family had been on Oahu since the 1890's. That is all in good but he is treated as an outsider by his accounts. The woman in question was at his house for a party with her white husband. The issue came up of native Hawaiian rights. After the discussion was well under way I brought up the fact that it is difficult to determine who was native Hawaiian vs the later Polynesian immigration within the last 100 years. She then piped up and said she was native. I then asked her how long her family had been on Hawaii. She got mad and did not directly tell me the truth. I already knew from asking my friend about this particular family. I was asking because they were in the same business I was in at the time. My whole point however is that she wanted rights over other people because she felt that she deserved them under the guise of being a native. In fact she was not a native and had spent much less time as a family on the islands as many non-looking natives.

Maybe this was a whole politically incorrect situation but I felt peeved by her assertions.

Well the situation we were in is that "she" was claiming to be a native Hawaiian when I already knew and maybe she didn't realize that she was first generation to be born in Hawaii in her family.
A little background info here. I was visiting a friend of mine while in Hawaii. I met him years ago in the service and he was a white guy from Hawaii. As he says his family had been on Oahu since the 1890's. That is all in good but he is treated as an outsider by his accounts. The woman in question was at his house for a party with her white husband. The issue came up of native Hawaiian rights. After the discussion was well under way I brought up the fact that it is difficult to determine who was native Hawaiian vs the later Polynesian immigration within the last 100 years. She then piped up and said she was native. I then asked her how long her family had been on Hawaii. She got mad and did not directly tell me the truth. I already knew from asking my friend about this particular family. I was asking because they were in the same business I was in at the time. My whole point however is that she wanted rights over other people because she felt that she deserved them under the guise of being a native. In fact she was not a native and had spent much less time as a family on the islands as many non-looking natives.

Maybe this was a whole politically incorrect situation but I felt peeved by her assertions.

oh ok i think you misunderstood my original question.

no, i agree with you. being polynesian doesnt make you hawaiian.

thats like a cherokee showing up at isleta pueblo (75 miles north of here) and claiming benefits because he is a "native".

arent there sometimes people who feel that "native belgians" are being overrun by ... oh i dont know ... the islamic hordes from turkey? or do y'all have old colonies where people of non-white races have the right to immigrate to belgium and it pisses people off?

We sure do have racists and xenphobes in Belgium but I've never heard them use the term native Belgians (there is no such thing I guess, Belgium is rather artificial. It only exists 177 years or something and before that various pieces were all part of larger empires). There are some who want to protect the Flemish culture/heritage from Wallonian and Islamic influences though, but they're more about culture and state-rights etc.

We sure do have racists and xenphobes in Belgium but I've never heard them use the term native Belgians (there is no such thing I guess, Belgium is rather artificial. It only exists 177 years or something and before that various pieces were all part of larger empires). There are some who want to protect the Flemish culture/heritage from Wallonian and Islamic influences though, but they're more about culture and state-rights etc.

Well I think culture is the basis of being from a particular group or not. I would say that is the defining factor don't you think?

thats like a cherokee showing up at isleta pueblo (75 miles north of here) and claiming benefits because he is a "native".

That might actually be funny. Would be interesting the reaction.

Well I think culture is the basis of being from a particular group or not. I would say that is the defining factor don't you think?

so if I went to live with native Americans and integrated perfectly I'd become native American?

and tbh my previous post was slightly wrong. Most of the Flemish nationalism is based on the "fact" that the lazy Wallonians are exploiting the hard working Flemish people. Culture only comes into play when they want to get rid of immigrants. The local variant of "native ..." is mostly used by right-wing demagogues, I guess that's mostly the case.

Here in the good old U of K, we used to have an interesting divide between the Celts and the Anglo-Saxons. Back before the Romans came, the British Isles were populated with various Celtic peoples. The area the Romans settled became Romano-British for 400 years and then some Jutes, Angles and Saxons came over from the mainland and settled in what became England. I used to tell tourists that the Scots, Irish and Welsh were "British" and that the English were Germans. However last year a study of the English gene pool found that the current population of England has a solid Celtic base and that they are just as Celticy as the rest of us.

When that group of people is pushed aside by an influx of more civilized/powerful people from somewhere else.

Examples would be the indians in the americas, pushed aside by the europeans, the ainu of japan, pushed aside by the japanese, the aboriginees of australia, &c &c.

Everyone born in the US is a "native american," but capital N Native american indians are especially native for the reason given above, because they were here before it became America.

so if I went to live with native Americans and integrated perfectly I'd become native American?
.


Essentially yes without the genetic connection.

Well my people live in an area that was formerly occupied by the Dene, the Stoney and the Blackfoot. Yet, all of us, Cree, Dene, Stoney and Blackfoot are natives. Native to the area now known as Canada. We were all here first.

Well my people live in an area that was formerly occupied by the Dene, the Stoney and the Blackfoot. Yet, all of us, Cree, Dene, Stoney and Blackfoot are natives. Native to the area now known as Canada. We were all here first.

Two points:

1. Being somewhere first makes you a native of that place? How? You may have an uncontested claim to the territory, but in no way does it make you native.

2. How do you prove that your people were there "First". Before the European settlers, we can agree on, but were you really there before the Guarani, for example, settled the area for a while whilst on their way to South America? I doubt that some how.

Two points:

1. Being somewhere first makes you a native of that place? How? You may have an uncontested claim to the territory, but in no way does it make you native.

2. How do you prove that your people were there "First". Before the European settlers, we can agree on, but were you really there before the Guarani, for example, settled the area for a while whilst on their way to South America? I doubt that some how.

*shrug*

We're native. We have been here for tens of thousands of years. We were here before the Europeans. Good enough for me. I'm not all that interested in semantic disections of the term, or theories about who predated us.

I happen to be a native of the land comprising the United States of America.
However, my grandparents were not natives of the U.S.

I am, individually, as native an American as has ever been born on the soil.
It was my place of birth, and has been my home my entire life.

I don't think many people would consider me a Native American though...

I happen to be a native of the land comprising the United States of America.
However, my grandparents were not natives of the U.S.

I am, individually, as native an American as has ever been born on the soil.
It was my place of birth, and has been my home my entire life.

I don't think many people would consider me a Native American though...

Yeah, it's not as though the average person is going to debate the validity of the term 'Native American' versus native american. :P

No, but really. One is commonly used, and understood to refer to a specific group. It is a different kind of 'native'.

You are native to where you were born. But being a native doesn't make you a Native. Being a Native doesn't even make you a Native of that land. Hmmm. Are we confused yet?

Ha...it's not really complicated :D

Ha...it's not really complicated :D

I get it.;)

The OP was just asking when a people becomes 'native'.
Well, I would say that I and any of my descendents that may be born and raised in this country, would be natives.
I will never be a Native American, that label is already taken.
I guess we are all natives, in the end, of the Earth. So, not much to argue about here.

I get it.;)

The OP was just asking when a people becomes 'native'.

I agree...born somewhere, native to it.

But the OP's question was triggered about a question about who is Native, not who is native.

Anyway.

I agree...born somewhere, native to it.

But the OP's question was triggered about a question about who is Native, not who is native.

Anyway.

Si.

I think that is what the OP meant, but he/she didn't capitalize 'native' anywhere.

Like..yo.

Si.

I think that is what the OP meant, but he/she didn't capitalize 'native' anywhere.

Like..yo.

Bahahahaha...yeah, well I just started using the capitalisation to distinguish the two terms.

Word to yer mother.

I have a question for the "Native Americans". At what point are you no longer a "Native American"?

I know a guy that lives in white society and is not subject to discrimination, mainly because unless he says something no one knows he's 1/32 Native American and has the card to prove it. His sons are 1/64th and also have the cards. He remains a part of the tribe in order to get a share of the gambling profits and other benefits.

I grew up near the Pine Ridge and Rosebud. I know those people need help. I don't mind if they get it through gambling or anywhere else. But I don't think anyone off of the reservation that no longer suffers under the limitations of the reservation system is deserving of special consideration. I don't mind if they remember their history as I do mine. I don't mind if they go to festivals and reunions in order to teach their children about their heritage.

I certainly don't think anyone with less than 1/4 that has no suffering, should take benefits designed to help those that still suffer from history.

Bahahahaha...yeah, well I just started using the capitalisation to distinguish the two terms.

Word to yer mother.

Aye.. and that is what distinguishes the Natives of NSG from the natives of NSG.

Fo sho'.

I have a question for the "Native Americans". At what point are you no longer a "Native American"? When you're not. It's hard to say really.

Officially here in Canada, you lose status when there has been two generations of outmarriage. There is no such thing as a status Indian who is 1/32, or even 1/8th native. The blood quantum rules are different in the US depending on tribal jurisdiction.

Now, I personally don't think that blood is everything. Yet, there are people who are 100% native, but who have never lived with aboriginal people, who have no knowledge of aboriginal culture whatsoever. I said 'yet', because I believe those people are still native. They can come back, any time they want to...they still have relations among us, they still have connections.

However, there are also people who have very little blood connection, yet live among us, know us, and live as we do, and I see no reason they should not be accepted as one of us. Of course...when scarce resources are linked to blood, then there is all the reason in the world to cut them out. It's not right though.

You never stop being native american while you have the blood. That's part of our inherent birthright. It might not mean anything more than a thread to trace back, that you may or may not wish to follow. I agree though that the 'blood connection' cut-off should be about 1/4. If only because I don't know of a single First Nation that allows membership (other than adoptions, and marriage) with less than 1/4th. By that I mean traditional membership. You don't BECOME native american with no blood, even if you are adopted or marry in...but you do gain citizenship in our nation.

It is a BS term, mostly. 'Native' simply comes from the latin word 'nata' which means 'born'. We flogged it from the french some time after 1066. Anyhow, as such 'native' simply pertains to birth.

The problem we currently face with the term is that in the context discussed, it is no longer valid. The term 'Native' is an external application from an objective party. It only makes sense when contrasted with a contextual counter-example. Historically, it was simply used to distinguish invaders or settlers from those already in the land of subject. In such a situation, this is a clear and simple descriptor. However, if you continue to use the word centuries after settlement/invasion, it becomes complicated. Technically you could legitimately use it retrospectively in reference to the period of invasion, however this is not how it is most often done. Idiots, instead, try to port this contextually based adjective to a ethnic noun of sorts. This is invalid, because, as already noted, you are native once you are born in the area of reference (meaning the next generation of invaders/settlers are all 'native').

You are a native if you are living in the area where you were born and if you have lived there pretty much your whole life. You can go away on vacations, military service, college, and maybe a short stint somewhere else when you are young. If you do much more than that you may lose your native status.

You are a native if you are living in the area where you were born and if you have lived there pretty much your whole life. You can go away on vacations, military service, college, and maybe a short stint somewhere else when you are young. If you do much more than that you may lose your native status.

Should that then give you the right to build casino's and generally disobey state laws but only follow federal ones?

You are a native if you are living in the area where you were born and if you have lived there pretty much your whole life. You can go away on vacations, military service, college, and maybe a short stint somewhere else when you are young. If you do much more than that you may lose your native status.

You think so, really? So say you were born in Acme, Alberta (it's a real place). You're native to the area...but then say at 20 you move away and live in Spain. You are no longer native to Acme? That doesn't seem to make sense. You aren't native to Spain, you aren't native to anywhere...what are you...adrift? Rootless? I think you're native to where you were born/grew up...if you didn't grow up where you were born, hmmm, well...I'd still venture that you were native to the area. To a certain extent.

Should that then give you the right to build casino's and generally disobey state laws but only follow federal ones?

Are you confusing Native with native again? Sheesh, I thought we had that figured out finally.

Are you confusing Native with native again? Sheesh, I thought we had that figured out finally.

nah, I am just being an asshat. Was making a tongue in cheek joke but it doesn't play out well over the interwebs. Ahh yes I forgot to capitalize one of the Native's. However you all were clever enough to figure it out on your own. ;)

nah, I am just being an asshat. Was making a tongue in cheek joke but it doesn't play out well over the interwebs. Ahh yes I forgot to capitalize one of the Native's. However you all were clever enough to figure it out on your own. ;)

You should have kept it going. Then I could have gone on a big rant about tribal jurisdiction and whitey this and whitey that, while threatening to scalp you and your furry pets.

Should that then give you the right to build casino's and generally disobey state laws but only follow federal ones?

what does that have to do with anything?

those rights are based on treaties signed between sovereign indian nations and the federal government. the states have no right to infringe on those treaties.

You should have kept it going. Then I could have gone on a big rant about tribal jurisdiction and whitey this and whitey that, while threatening to scalp you and your furry pets.

I just blame the man. It is much simpler and implies anyone that has power over me be it white or not.

*giggles*

what does that have to do with anything?

those rights are based on treaties signed between sovereign indian nations and the federal government. the states have no right to infringe on those treaties.

Check my response to Neesika the warrior goddess. ;)

I just blame the man. It is much simpler and implies anyone that has power over me be it white or not.

But that's kind of sexist.

But that's kind of sexist.

Did I say the "man"? I meant woman. Damn I can't capitalize or spell right. :p

Did I say the "man"? I meant woman. Damn I can't capitalize or spell right. :p

No no no...it has to be 'the gender neutral locus of power'.

No no no...it has to be 'the gender neutral locus of power'.

Robots. :eek:

Robots. :eek:

Robotist.

Should that then give you the right to build casino's and generally disobey state laws but only follow federal ones?

No. However, if you are a member of a tribe that has treaty rights, you and your tribe have a degree of treaty rights. Being a native has nothing to do with being a member of a tribe with treaty rights.

You think so, really? So say you were born in Acme, Alberta (it's a real place). You're native to the area...but then say at 20 you move away and live in Spain. You are no longer native to Acme? That doesn't seem to make sense. You aren't native to Spain, you aren't native to anywhere...what are you...adrift? Rootless? I think you're native to where you were born/grew up...if you didn't grow up where you were born, hmmm, well...I'd still venture that you were native to the area. To a certain extent.

I really do think so. I believe that a native is someone who is at least born and raised in a particular area. I also think that one needs to spend at least some significant time there as an adult.

I think your Acmeman would be a rootless nomad of sorts.

In the real world its when they take it over by majority population.

You are a native to an area if you were born in that area. I am a native to Connecticut. My friend, who was born in Massachusetts and moved to Connecticut when he was 2, is not. He is a native to Massachusetts, because he was born there. There's no need to classify people as indigenous beyond that anymore.

Question is when does a group of people become indigenous to a particular area? We associate time in a area as being important in the consideration of a group of people being native to an area. Is there a steadfast set of rules? Is it just up to political correctness of the day? The reason I say this is because another thread brought this question to my brain along with an disagreement I had with a Polynesian on Oahu claiming they were native Hawaiian.

What are some of the opinions on when a people gets to claim "native" status to a particular area?

17. When you're 17, that's it.


17.