theliq
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #321
Excellent Post Challenger...A1theliq, et al,
The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.
(COMMENT)well I can tell you for nothing Rocco,Jews were definately sic NOT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THIS LAND.......NOT BY A LONG HAUL..steve and you know itMJB12741,
The definition of "Indigenous People(s)" is tricky to say the least. The definition is often self serving.
Objectively, there are two very key issues that must be addressed before a determination can be made on the assignment of the "Indigenous People" label.
• How far back in time are you accepting evidence of a culture with historical ties to the territory?
• How long does it take for a culture to be in place before it can be considered "Indigenous?"
(COMMENT)
There is NO Universally accepted definition for "Indigenous People." Why? (Rhetorical) Simply because it raises difficult questions that cannot be settled accurately by law.
The Ohio Scenario
If the Canadians mount a successful amphibious assault from Ontario and captures the State of Ohio, who are considered the "indigenous population?"
OR, is it still the Iroquois, Miami, and Shawnee Tribes that inhabited the Ohio Valley (territory west of the Appalachian Mountains) in the time of the French and Indian Wars?
OR, was it the first American Settlers that moving west and encroaching on the indian inhabitants?
It is tied up in the nebulas phrase "historical ties to a particular territory;" or as the Allied Powers said at San Remo: "the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine." In 1920, when the Allied Powers were making decisions on the apportionment of former Ottoman Empire territory, they saw the history of the territory of Palestine as very transient and evolving. The territory of Palestine was a sliver of land that was controlled by numerous different Empires, Countries, and Cultural Authorities [Paleo-Canaanites, Amorites, Ancient Egyptians, Israelites, Moabites, Ammonites, Tjeker, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), French Crusaders, (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottoman Turks), and soon the British]. (List from Wikipedia --- History of Palestine) This is what the Allied Powers saw in the way of History. This is part of the thought process that ultimately lead them to the decisions they made.
Yes, we also consider cultural and historical distinction, ethnic groups associated, and a share sense of identity. But in the end, you have to ask yourself, how long do you look back in time to determine "indigenous?"
Most Respectfully,
R
The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.
What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"
Most Respectfully,
Rtheliq, et al,
The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.
(COMMENT)well I can tell you for nothing Rocco,Jews were definately sic NOT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THIS LAND.......NOT BY A LONG HAUL..steve and you know itMJB12741,
The definition of "Indigenous People(s)" is tricky to say the least. The definition is often self serving.
Objectively, there are two very key issues that must be addressed before a determination can be made on the assignment of the "Indigenous People" label.
• How far back in time are you accepting evidence of a culture with historical ties to the territory?
• How long does it take for a culture to be in place before it can be considered "Indigenous?"
(COMMENT)
There is NO Universally accepted definition for "Indigenous People." Why? (Rhetorical) Simply because it raises difficult questions that cannot be settled accurately by law.
The Ohio Scenario
If the Canadians mount a successful amphibious assault from Ontario and captures the State of Ohio, who are considered the "indigenous population?"
OR, is it still the Iroquois, Miami, and Shawnee Tribes that inhabited the Ohio Valley (territory west of the Appalachian Mountains) in the time of the French and Indian Wars?
OR, was it the first American Settlers that moving west and encroaching on the indian inhabitants?
It is tied up in the nebulas phrase "historical ties to a particular territory;" or as the Allied Powers said at San Remo: "the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine." In 1920, when the Allied Powers were making decisions on the apportionment of former Ottoman Empire territory, they saw the history of the territory of Palestine as very transient and evolving. The territory of Palestine was a sliver of land that was controlled by numerous different Empires, Countries, and Cultural Authorities [Paleo-Canaanites, Amorites, Ancient Egyptians, Israelites, Moabites, Ammonites, Tjeker, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), French Crusaders, (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottoman Turks), and soon the British]. (List from Wikipedia --- History of Palestine) This is what the Allied Powers saw in the way of History. This is part of the thought process that ultimately lead them to the decisions they made.
Yes, we also consider cultural and historical distinction, ethnic groups associated, and a share sense of identity. But in the end, you have to ask yourself, how long do you look back in time to determine "indigenous?"
Most Respectfully,
R
The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.
What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"
Most Respectfully,
R
Depends which theory you believe. British culture remained during the Roman occupation, as did the majority of the population. When the Romans left, the indigenous population continued; true there was some intermarriage, but the bulk of the population just stopped speaking Latin (if they ever did to begin with) and abandonded those funny square houses with their underfloor heating systems. Roman cities gradually disappeared due to lack of use. When the Saxons came, did they come as colonists or conquerors? Did Saxon culture spread or did Saxon genes? The Saxons certainly became the new aristocracy and in 500 years or so Anglo-Saxon became the lingua franca and dominant culture, except in the Danelaw where Norse was spoken. Similarly, when the Normans came, was there a mass influx of Norman people into the country, or just a new governing elite? Recent genetic studies seem to indicate that the indigenous population of Britain has remained fairly constant, with admixtures of foreign genetic material, which tends to support the theory of cultural domination and eventual assimilation as opposed mass migration and native expulsion.
If an indigenous population adopts the language and culture of a conqueror it remains indigenous, regardless of time. "Judeans" have adopted Iranian, Greco-Roman and Arabic culture and languages over the millenia, to name but a few. The native population remains indigenous to the area. For Jewish Europeans, north Africans, and Etheopians to claim ownership by virtue of some semitic material admixture in their genome and the writings of a book of fables, is quite frankly, ridiculous.