NationStates Jolt Archive

I saw Ruffy's thread but it was closed before I could answer it.

I am ever curious to the reasoning of this claim of what is native or not. Aboriginals of the North American continent claim the Europeans are not natives and now we have claims of the aboriginals not really being natives as they came across the straights.

That kind of logic to me seems rather limited simply because if we break it down; nobody is really native to a particular land and we are all Africans if you believe the out of Africa theory.

How many generations does it take if ever?

I would think it depends on the culture of the people. Can you link the tribal people of North America to Asia in customs, language?

Even today the European "invaders" decedents really aren't European anymore so how are they not "new natives" to the continent?

It's sad in away that such arguments go on. In my moments of Pollyanna; I want to believe racism is limited to a small group of people but times I wonder about the whole? Seems like it's only changed in that it's not overt and violent as in the past.

Will the color blind society ever happen?

I don't know.

Indigenous peoples: population groups with ancestral connections to place prior to formally recorded (i.e. written) history.

A native is someone who wears no clothes... ah no that's a naturist! :D

Indigenous peoples: population groups with ancestral connections to place prior to formally recorded (i.e. written) history.

^ This.

Indigenous peoples: population groups with ancestral connections to place prior to formally recorded (i.e. written) history.

It is OK as a definition, but why should, for example, the descendants of the Romans that conquered England not be considered native English whereas the Aztecs that conquered half of South America more than a millennium later be considered native, which is what would be the result of using this criterion.

Just because written records allow us to identify that the group concerned "arrived" at some point, does not mean that other groups that used only oral record keeping methods did not also "arrive", nor that we cannot know that they are later arrivals, conquering some other people.

EDIT
I would argue that we should define native to mean the earliest known identifiable group of people to occupy the territory concerned. This would imply that the natives of the UK are the Picts, for example.

Natives-people with funny clothes (http://www.praestholm.se/lapp_2.jpg). :p

People who've been living in a region since BC times, IMO.

Hmm... I suppose you could argue that the word native is inextricably linked to colonialism. Therefore perhaps native is word only to be used when there are two groups, of which one has colonial ambitions and is new to the territory.

Natives-people with funny clothes (http://www.praestholm.se/lapp_2.jpg). :p
Heh, it's the Saami! :D

Hmmm...

You should ask Clym, whenever he comes back.

If your born somewhere... you're a native. How hard is that to figure out... nobody could call me native European.. I never have even been to Europe, let alone been born there.

Indigenous peoples: population groups with ancestral connections to place prior to formally recorded (i.e. written) history.

i'll second that and maybe expand on it a little.

someone who is more then 50% decended from cultures that have lived on as very nearly as possible the exact same spot where they currently are, for as close as possible to, or longer then, ten thousand years.

of course, most of us today, aren't even close to 50% decended from any single ethnicity, nor that ethnographicly local. MOST of us. but the few that are, these are the true and only true, natives of anywhere.

not that's it's evil not to be. or that most of us can be reasonably held accountable for the enequities of our ancestors. but we are responsible for the cultural values we choose, and the policies we support and oppose.

=^^=
.../\...

My parents were born here in the US, and so was I. Therefore, my parents and I are native to the US.

if you want to say that you are "native" because you were born here (wherever here is) FINE.

but you are still going to have to give a different title to those who are indigenous to the area you live in.

i dont see any reason to pretend that those who still keep (some) of the culture that they had when they were invaded and subjugated by outsiders, who are easily identified today, are not who they are.

if you want to say that you are "native" because you were born here (wherever here is) FINE.

but you are still going to have to give a different title to those who are indigenous to the area you live in.

i dont see any reason to pretend that those who still keep (some) of the culture that they had when they were invaded and subjugated by outsiders, who are easily identified today, are not who they are.

Native/Indigenous Peoples :D

My parents were born here in the US, and so was I. Therefore, my parents and I are native to the US.

My family has been in this country since before there was a "this country" to be in. The Coeymans and Bronk families both came here back when this was New Netherlands. In fact, I'm living on the same land now that my many many many greats-grandparents lived on. How many "natives" can say that?

if you want to say that you are "native" because you were born here (wherever here is) FINE.

but you are still going to have to give a different title to those who are indigenous to the area you live in.

i dont see any reason to pretend that those who still keep (some) of the culture that they had when they were invaded and subjugated by outsiders, who are easily identified today, are not who they are.
Yes, the Mahicans and Mohawks, the major tribes from my area, were known for their fabulous casinos back in the 1500s. We shouldn't pretend they didn't have a culture, but we also shouldn't pretend that they're keeping it.

Globally - People who lived in places Europeans have gone that aren't Europeans.
Locally - people who lived somewhere before it was taken over by someone else. Ex, the Chinese minorities and the han, the ainu and the japs, et cetera.

Yes, the Mahicans and Mohawks, the major tribes from my area, were known for their fabulous casinos back in the 1500s. We shouldn't pretend they didn't have a culture, but we also shouldn't pretend that they're keeping it.

oh yes, one can only be a native american if they are dirt poor and living in goverment provided hovels.

you dont know what culture they are keeping and what they arent. but you sure know who they are.

oh yes, one can only be a native american if they are dirt poor and living in goverment provided hovels.

you dont know what culture they are keeping and what they arent. but you sure know who they are.

Did I say anything about poor? Did I say that? I don't see that anywhere in my post. I did say that they aren't keeping it. And perhaps I was a bit extreme in saying that. Sure, they're keeping some of it, in the same way I keep my Dutch heritage. Not a whole lot. Look, the fact is, I'd be willing to put money down that nobody at Turning Stone is living in a long house, hunting and trapping bears. They most likely work at the casino, or are unemployed. That sounds like Vegas to me.

I'm not saying the only people who are Native American are poor, live on a reservation, or any other stereotype. I'm just saying that from my experience, my education, and the experiences and education of my parents, it does not seem to me that there is a lot of preservation of the pre-Columbian cultures in my area. And most of what is preserved is in museums.

But this thread isn't about that. This thread is about what qualifies a native, and in my mind, a native is not determined by who was born where, but more by culture. If anyone wants to claim that the native culture in the Albany area is at all similar to that of the pre-Columbian cultures, go ahead. You'll be completely wrong, but go right ahead.

Brent Michael Davids is of Mahican decent, but he wouldn't be considered native to here. He lives in St. Paul and was born in Madison, Wisconsin. He's not a native of here or Stockbridge or anywhere around here. My bet is he has a flat "a," and uses a "t" rather than a "d" when he says words like "better." He probably couldn't spell Schenectady, Rensselaer, or Schoharie if his life depended on it. Nor could he tell the difference between Albany, Schenectady, and Troy. Now, most of those things are trivial. But there are plenty of other subtle cultural things that a person from Minnesota would not share with a person from Albany. Why would he be native?

But my sister's friend Hallee was born in Korea, as were her parents, and grandparents, great grandparents, etc. But you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who seems more native to Albany than her. Why?

Native is based on culture. Not ancestry.

if you want to say that you are "native" because you were born here (wherever here is) FINE.

but you are still going to have to give a different title to those who are indigenous to the area you live in.

i dont see any reason to pretend that those who still keep (some) of the culture that they had when they were invaded and subjugated by outsiders, who are easily identified today, are not who they are.

How far do we go back? Apparently new evidence suggests there were people here in the America's before the mass migration from Asia. I am specifically talking about the" Kenniwick man" and the other skeletons they are finding that match him. He is of different Asian stock then the predominate one. So if one could prove genetically that they are from this stock then what?

Edit: Had to edit to make sense....

I saw Ruffy's thread but it was closed before I could answer it.

I am ever curious to the reasoning of this claim of what is native or not. Aboriginals of the North American continent claim the Europeans are not natives and now we have claims of the aboriginals not really being natives as they came across the straights.

That kind of logic to me seems rather limited simply because if we break it down; nobody is really native to a particular land and we are all Africans if you believe the out of Africa theory.

How many generations does it take if ever?

I would think it depends on the culture of the people. Can you link the tribal people of North America to Asia in customs, language?

Even today the European "invaders" decedents really aren't European anymore so how are they not "new natives" to the continent?

It's sad in away that such arguments go on. In my moments of Pollyanna; I want to believe racism is limited to a small group of people but times I wonder about the whole? Seems like it's only changed in that it's not overt and violent as in the past.

Will the color blind society ever happen?

I don't know.

If you think that being native is digital (you either are or you aren't) then simply being born in a place makes you native. It's why American law says that you're a citizen even if your illegal immigrant mother snuck across the border to squeeze you out.

Like in Gangs of New York. The war was between the "natives" and the immigrants. But most of the Natives would only have been 2nd or 3rd generation.

But the term Native American seems to consider it an analogue quality. They are more native than the rest of us. They were the first ones here, and so did not have to take it from anyone else.

Yes, the Mahicans and Mohawks, the major tribes from my area, were known for their fabulous casinos back in the 1500s. We shouldn't pretend they didn't have a culture, but we also shouldn't pretend that they're keeping it.

Hey, buddy...your people didn't have cars and internet back in the 1500s. Hope you're not trying to pretend you've kept your culture.

Where does this asinine belief come from, that people need to be 'frozen in time' to remain who they are? That's right...get your ass back into horse driven carts and try texting on a real blackberry (http://ingenius.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/blackberry-fruit-inverell-lrt-web.jpg).

How far do we go back? Apparently new evidence suggests there were people here in the America's before the mass migration from Asia. He is of different Asian stock then the predominate one. So if one could prove genetically that they are from this stock then what? I am specifically talking about the" Kenniwick man" and the other skeletons they are finding that match him.

if your cultural myths have your people always living in the area, you are indigenous. for example the hopi people know what caves their ancestors climbed up onto the earth from.

land bridges are meaningless.

Did I say anything about poor? Did I say that? I don't see that anywhere in my post. I did say that they aren't keeping it. And perhaps I was a bit extreme in saying that. Sure, they're keeping some of it, in the same way I keep my Dutch heritage. Not a whole lot. Look, the fact is, I'd be willing to put money down that nobody at Turning Stone is living in a long house, hunting and trapping bears. They most likely work at the casino, or are unemployed. That sounds like Vegas to me.

I'm not saying the only people who are Native American are poor, live on a reservation, or any other stereotype. I'm just saying that from my experience, my education, and the experiences and education of my parents, it does not seem to me that there is a lot of preservation of the pre-Columbian cultures in my area. And most of what is preserved is in museums.

But this thread isn't about that. This thread is about what qualifies a native, and in my mind, a native is not determined by who was born where, but more by culture. If anyone wants to claim that the native culture in the Albany area is at all similar to that of the pre-Columbian cultures, go ahead. You'll be completely wrong, but go right ahead.

Brent Michael Davids is of Mahican decent, but he wouldn't be considered native to here. He lives in St. Paul and was born in Madison, Wisconsin. He's not a native of here or Stockbridge or anywhere around here. My bet is he has a flat "a," and uses a "t" rather than a "d" when he says words like "better." He probably couldn't spell Schenectady, Rensselaer, or Schoharie if his life depended on it. Nor could he tell the difference between Albany, Schenectady, and Troy. Now, most of those things are trivial. But there are plenty of other subtle cultural things that a person from Minnesota would not share with a person from Albany. Why would he be native?

But my sister's friend Hallee was born in Korea, as were her parents, and grandparents, great grandparents, etc. But you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who seems more native to Albany than her. Why?

Native is based on culture. Not ancestry.


youre the one who brought up casinos as evidence of why the mahicans and mohawks are some kind of frauds.

Hey, buddy...your people didn't have cars and internet back in the 1500s. Hope you're not trying to pretend you've kept your culture.

Where does this asinine belief come from, that people need to be 'frozen in time' to remain who they are? That's right...get your ass back into horse driven carts and try texting on a real blackberry (http://ingenius.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/blackberry-fruit-inverell-lrt-web.jpg).

The westernised homogenised human does not claim to be trying to maintain a culture, or even to actually have a culture in many cases. On this basis your comment that we didn't have cars and the internet in 1500 is rather irrelevant.

Now, as to people having to be 'frozen in time' to 'remain who they are', that depends greatly on how you define who you are. If you define yourself in terms of the traditions of a cultural group, then you had better make sure that at least the philosophy behind those traditions is maintained. How exactly ownership of casinos fits with the traditional philosophies of the 'native' north american peoples you would be far better qualified to explain then me.

So what exactly is a native?
A misnomer.

The westernised homogenised human does not claim to be trying to maintain a culture, or even to actually have a culture in many cases. On this basis your comment that we didn't have cars and the internet in 1500 is rather irrelevant.

Now, as to people having to be 'frozen in time' to 'remain who they are', that depends greatly on how you define who you are. If you define yourself in terms of the traditions of a cultural group, then you had better make sure that at least the philosophy behind those traditions is maintained. How exactly ownership of casinos fits with the traditional philosophies of the 'native' north american peoples you would be far better qualified to explain then me.

1) It doesn't sound like you've done much research on the social, spiritual and commercial structure of the Mohawk, so I'm not entirely sure why you've granted yourself the authority to proclaim that owning casinos is somehow counter to the Mohawks' culture. Gambling was actually a very popular activity in many tribes, including the Mohawk, long before colonization.

2) Even if gambling HADN'T been a part of Mohawk culture, I don't see how running casinos invalidates their culture in any way. That's like saying someone from Kyoto who likes to eat bagels for breakfast rather than chirashi isn't really Japanese.

3) When you are descended from a people who were systematically decimated, demoralized and forced into reservations centuries ago, it's pretty hard to practice a traditional lifestyle. Many Native tribes were relocated to barren parcels of land nowhere near their ancestral homes and forced into a society that does not value their culture, a society in which they cannot financially support themselves in the ways they used to before European invasion. Even still, many have tried to balance their culture with the demands of modern society. Many Mohawk men became steel workers and built bridges because they were used to scaling tall trees and were unafraid of heights.

4) Considering that you're talking about a population that was the victim of generations of attempted genocide and currently has the highest rates of alcoholism and suicide in the nation, your comments are at best callous and uninformed.

They're the restless folk. *nod*

Indigenous peoples: population groups with ancestral connections to place prior to formally recorded (i.e. written) history.

Interestingly, this means that English people should not be considered native to England.

The inspiration behind that thread was a discussion between me and my history teacher who was telling us about native Americans and how they came from two different places. I asked how could they both be native, and if either was original to North America. He said that with the information we have, there's no real way to know. It really bothered me for some reason.

I would have to say the tribes from Mexico were really the native Americans, seeing as the ones that crossed the land-bridge came from another continent.

This topic is a little annoying to me because of the uncertainty of who was "here" first.

Though, as I see it, neither are "native" to North America, but those from South America are, in my opinion, the true natives to the Americas.

*shrugs*

Interestingly, this means that English people should not be considered native to England.
Native by one definition, but not the one synonymous with "indigenous."

The inspiration behind that thread was a discussion between me and my history teacher who was telling us about native Americans and how they came from two different places. I asked how could they both be native, and if either was original to North America. He said that with the information we have, there's no real way to know. It really bothered me for some reason.

I would have to say the tribes from Mexico were really the native Americans, seeing as the ones that crossed the land-bridge came from another continent.

This topic is a little annoying to me because of the uncertainty of who was "here" first.

Though, as I see it, neither are "native" to North America, but those from South America are, in my opinion, the true natives to the Americas.

*shrugs*
Every Native American's ancestors came via the Bering at some point in time, although probably in multiple migrations. Wasn't the whole boat from Easter Island thing debunked through genetic analysis?

I think that the most reasonable place for any person's nativity is wherever your ancestors were when "civilization" started to play a significant role in their lives.

Native by one definition, but not the one synonymous with "indigenous."


Every Native American's ancestors came via the Bering at some point in time, although probably in multiple migrations. Wasn't the whole boat from Easter Island thing debunked through genetic analysis?

I think that the most reasonable place for any person's nativity is wherever your ancestors were when "civilization" started to play a significant role in their lives.

I'm not exactly going by genetics here.

More or less, I feel the tribe(s) with the greater connection to a new land is the native. To if the South Americans just had to go North, they would be the natives, while the land-bridgers would be secondary citizens. Which, of course, would make them the immigrants.

I am ever curious to the reasoning of this claim of what is native or not. Aboriginals of the North American continent claim the Europeans are not natives and now we have claims of the aboriginals not really being natives as they came across the straights.

I have never heard anyone, Aboriginal or not, make that claim. I have heard at least one Aboriginal scholar make the point that descendants of Europeans in North America are native Americans but not Native Americans.

Interestingly, this means that English people should not be considered native to England. No, it means they should not be considered indigenous to England.

The westernised homogenised human does not claim to be trying to maintain a culture, or even to actually have a culture in many cases.


Right. They just claim to be maintaining a "civilization".

Shoot me if you like for saying this, but:

IMHO, a native is the guy who was there before you showed up and took his land away, but it hasn't been long enough that his culture has become assimilated into yours.

This thread has numerous examples of what should and shouldn't be a native. Use the example of Britain. Around 300-400 AD, there were numerous migrations to the island of Britain. At the time, it was inhabited by several tribes of "indigenous peoples", picts among them. (There is evidence of earlier migrations from Scotland and Ireland, but let's leave that for now). There were also Romans, who had invaded and established several administrative centers in various British towns. Then over the course of a few centuries, the Danes, Saxons, Angles and others came and took over portions of the land. I am sure that at the time, there was a great deal of friction between natives and interlopers. But now, several centuries later, the culture has homogenized (to a certain extent... witness the continued existence of pockets of Welsh and Scottish people) and many of the descendants of these Saxons etc. are now native Englishmen. Because, after all, if they have a few Saxon ancestors, they probably also have a bunch of Pictish ancestors.

So, give it a millennium or so, and Native Americans probably won't exist anymore either.

(Shoot me now, if you so desire....... :sniper:)

Hmm... I suppose you could argue that the word native is inextricably linked to colonialism. Therefore perhaps native is word only to be used when there are two groups, of which one has colonial ambitions and is new to the territory.seconded.

The westernised homogenised human does not claim to be trying to maintain a culture, or even to actually have a culture in many cases. On this basis your comment that we didn't have cars and the internet in 1500 is rather irrelevant.

Now, as to people having to be 'frozen in time' to 'remain who they are', that depends greatly on how you define who you are. If you define yourself in terms of the traditions of a cultural group, then you had better make sure that at least the philosophy behind those traditions is maintained. How exactly ownership of casinos fits with the traditional philosophies of the 'native' north american peoples you would be far better qualified to explain then me.

How absolutely ridiculous to claim to not have a culture, when nearly every aspect of Western 'homogenised' society, especially in terms of the anglo-saxon nations, is based on that culture. You have only to look at the political and legal systems to see how those systems rely on ancient cultural beliefs. You might be UNAWARE of that culture, when it is the 'mainstream', but claiming that either it doesn't exist or that no one is trying to maintain it is laughable.

As for our traditions, well we were economically self-sufficient. One of the best ways to be so again is to create wealth, and employment. Seems a no-brainer to me that casinos are one way to do that. Is it just the casinos you take umbrage with, or what?

Most nations do in fact have traditional links to gambling...the concept was hardly unknown to us.

Anyone with a -4 fortitude save towards firewater.

Though, as I see it, neither are "native" to North America, but those from South America are, in my opinion, the true natives to the Americas.

*shrugs*
Then please show me how the natves of South America are genetically different than the natives of North America.

The Athapaskans in particular spread out over thousands of kilometres. If you truly believe the Bering Strait theory, it's possble they continued to migrate on down south.

They're the restless folk. *nod*

*looks around the General forum*

They most certainly ARE restless. :D

Then please show me how the natves of South America are genetically different than the natives of North America.

The Athapaskans in particular spread out over thousands of kilometres. If you truly believe the Bering Strait theory, it's possble they continued to migrate on down south.

Well it's obvious that God created humans and placed them in the Garden of Eden (south 'merika).

A native.

na·tive /ˈneɪtɪv/ [ney-tiv]
–adjective

1. being the place or environment in which a person was born or a thing came into being: one's native land.

Not sure what was so hard about that.


if you want to say that you are "native" because you were born here (wherever here is) FINE.
What other type of "native" is there?


but you are still going to have to give a different title to those who are indigenous to the area you live in.

1. Um.. why?

2. Indigenous?

in·dig·e·nous /ɪnˈdɪdʒənəs/ [in-dij-uh-nuhs]
–adjective

1. originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country; native (often fol. by to): the plants indigenous to Canada; the indigenous peoples of southern Africa.

If indigenous is used in a way different from just plain native, then no person can ever be considered "indigenous" to anywhere, with the possible exception of Africa or whatever..

A culture can maybe, but not people. And still even then, it would have to apply to every remotely distinct culture as well.


i dont see any reason to pretend that those who still keep (some) of the culture that they had when they were invaded and subjugated by outsiders, who are easily identified today, are not who they are.
I don't really see what you're getting at..? Who's claiming that someone is not who they are?!