The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?

[xotoxi]

Coyote,

How would you differentiate between resident and indigenous? And why do you think that differentiation might matter?

I don't actually think it matters. I think "resident" is as important if not more, than "indiginous". It's very difficult to define and determine who is "indiginous" because there is almost always someone there before and each succeeding wave of immigrants or invaders alters culture/language/religion of the current inhabitents.

The indiginous people of Georgia are Cherokees. They were conquered by the Europeans and displaced.

And I would fully support their right to self-determination and sovereignty on their ancestral territory.

But how do you do that without displacing people and then causing a Redneck/Redskin war?

 

[Shusha]

Coyote,

How would you differentiate between resident and indigenous? And why do you think that differentiation might matter?

I don't actually think it matters. I think "resident" is as important if not more, than "indiginous". It's very difficult to define and determine who is "indiginous" because there is almost always someone there before and each succeeding wave of immigrants or invaders alters culture/language/religion of the current inhabitents.

The indiginous people of Georgia are Cherokees. They were conquered by the Europeans and displaced.

And I would fully support their right to self-determination and sovereignty on their ancestral territory.

But how do you do that without displacing people and then causing a Redneck/Redskin war?

We're managing to do it just fine in Canada.

 

[xotoxi]

Coyote,

How would you differentiate between resident and indigenous? And why do you think that differentiation might matter?

I don't actually think it matters. I think "resident" is as important if not more, than "indiginous". It's very difficult to define and determine who is "indiginous" because there is almost always someone there before and each succeeding wave of immigrants or invaders alters culture/language/religion of the current inhabitents.

The indiginous people of Georgia are Cherokees. They were conquered by the Europeans and displaced.

And I would fully support their right to self-determination and sovereignty on their ancestral territory.

But how do you do that without displacing people and then causing a Redneck/Redskin war?

We're managing to do it just fine in Canada.

There are a lot of Americans, especially in the South, who won't stand for sharing.

 

[Boston1]

The genetic tests are somewhat misleading. It very much depends on what markers you are looking for. We also have 99% in common with a chimp, but no one would suggest a chimp is indigenous to say, the Cherokee homelands. or the Iroquois. Of the 1% left over, there's still millions and millions of groupings typical of racial mixing. There's also the vetting process for picking subjects to represent certain groups. Lots of variables with the genetic studies that can skew the results. Hell there's even a fair share of bacterial DNA that gets mixed in depending on what foods you eat. The DNA tests become much more questionable when you delve deeper than the basics.

IMHO the definition of indigenous is also questionable with many people thinking its somehow time dependent, The subject in the USA became sufficiently contentious that the more accurate term, first nations people was applied.

Quote

1. 
   in·dig·e·nous
   inˈdijənəs/
   adjective
   1. originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.
      "the indigenous peoples of Siberia"
      synonyms: native, original, aboriginal, autochthonous;More
      
      End Quote

Because so many people don't pay much attention to actual meanings its easy for some to think that indigenous is something you can become if you live there for a few hundred years, its not. Ones people must originate in that specific location.

The term first nations was invented to try and help clear that up, but even that got muddied

With this in mind

Who is the first nation people of the Canaan valley area ?

Hands down its the Judaic people. Its really not even a question.

As we can see indigenous isn't defined as a genetic grouping. its an ethnic, national ( in the ancient meaning ) grouping. Ethnicity is another interesting word.

Quote
eth·nic
ˈeTHnik/
adjective

of or relating to a population subgroup (within a larger or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or cultural tradition.

End quote

So in order to be an indigenous people, one must have existed in a given location naturally or developed there.

Which brings us to the question, is war a natural condition. Is the meaning intended to address the basest of our traditions ? Does the term naturally imply that its normal for one persons tribe to slaughter the other ? Is naturally occurring ( as seen in the definition of indigenous ) intended to include those who slaughter the inhabitants of a given area and move in to inhabit that area ?

While war is a common incident, I don't see it as being intended in the meaning of "naturally occurring"

So by definition an indigenous people is one who must have either developed in a given area or be naturally occurring.

Which brings us to the question of how far back one goes in history in order to find an indigenous people.

In the case of the Canaan valley its about the middle bronze age.

Where we find the

drum roll please

Egyptians

Who were farming the Canaan valley area for quite some time. Undetermined amount of time actually. People argue the age of the pyramids endlessly. But for however long it was, it ended.

From what I recall ( called the late bronze age collapse ) it was a drought combined with pressure from waring factions in the nile delta area that convinced the Egyptians to leave their Canaan valley farmlands and retreat to defensive positions outside Canaan.

Which led to the more primitive mountain tribes in the area, members of the Hyksos group, to gradually descend into the valleys of Canaan and pick up where the Egyptians left off. These people would eventually develop into the Judaic tribes.

I believe this would be called "naturally occurring" and meet the definition of Indigenous.

Interestingly enough the evidence in the development of the Judaic people in Canaan bears no resemblance to the old testament story ( originally an oral history of the Judaic tribes ) of a diaspora and a brave expulsion from Egyptian servitude or even a conquest of Canaan. See Silberman and Finkelstein "The Bible Unearthed"

This development appears to have occurred without any major disruptions by either the Egyptians, Hittites or Assyrian empires. Who were dealing with their own problems at the time.

We all know what happened to the Egyptians, they're still with us. The Hittites had a tendency to go at it with the Assyrians once they became a player and oddly enough one of their more well known treaties as I recall considered the center of the Canaan valley as the armistice line. Ignoring any Hyksos claim to the area as any form of military power, indicating at this time they were still a primitive insignificant tribe or group of tribes. Pretty sure that was about 1200 BCE

The Hittites were eventually pretty much rubbed out by the Assyrians in a series of wars that generally resulted in a slight mixing of bloodlines and a decline of Hittite culture and language. The Hittites also were on the run long enough that they ended up well outside of anywhere it could be said they either "developed in or occurred naturally"

Its pretty easy to see that the Assyrians had pushed the Hittites all the way back through the Canaan valley, from their original homeland in what it today Turkey

So what happened to the Assyrians

They are still around wedged between Iraq and Turkey.

So in the end it was a primitive group known to archeologists as the Hyksos who in this particular area developed into the Judaic tribes inhabiting the mountain areas around the Canaan valley who stayed throughout the ebb and flow of waring early cultures. to this day. Even the Babylonians ( who spelled the end for the Assyrian dominance in the area ) couldn't manage to conquer the Judaic tribes at this point in history. Actually even the Romans didn't force every last Jew from the land. Even the worst of the pogroms failed. Israel is alive and well today, its people enjoy a distinct language, culture and nationality in both the ancient and modern sense.

PS
Not sure what this stuff is below but it doesn't show up in the edit box so I can't seem to get rid of it ;--)

 

[P F Tinmore]

The genetic tests are somewhat misleading. It very much depends on what markers you are looking for. We also have 99% in common with a chimp, but no one would suggest a chimp is indigenous to say, the Cherokee homelands. or the Iroquois. Of the 1% left over, there's still millions and millions of groupings typical of racial mixing. There's also the vetting process for picking subjects to represent certain groups. Lots of variables with the genetic studies that can skew the results. Hell there's even a fair share of bacterial DNA that gets mixed in depending on what foods you eat. The DNA tests become much more questionable when you delve deeper than the basics.

IMHO the definition of indigenous is also questionable with many people thinking its somehow time dependent, The subject in the USA became sufficiently contentious that the more accurate term, first nations people was applied.

Quote

1. 
   in·dig·e·nous
   inˈdijənəs/
   adjective
   1. originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.
      "the indigenous peoples of Siberia"
      synonyms: native, original, aboriginal, autochthonous;More
      
      End Quote

Because so many people don't pay much attention to actual meanings its easy for some to think that indigenous is something you can become if you live there for a few hundred years, its not. Ones people must originate in that specific location.

The term first nations was invented to try and help clear that up, but even that got muddied

With this in mind

Who is the first nation people of the Canaan valley area ?

Hands down its the Judaic people. Its really not even a question.

As we can see indigenous isn't defined as a genetic grouping. its an ethnic, national ( in the ancient meaning ) grouping. Ethnicity is another interesting word.

Quote
eth·nic
ˈeTHnik/
adjective

of or relating to a population subgroup (within a larger or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or cultural tradition.

End quote

So in order to be an indigenous people, one must have existed in a given location naturally or developed there.

Which brings us to the question, is war a natural condition. Is the meaning intended to address the basest of our traditions ? Does the term naturally imply that its normal for one persons tribe to slaughter the other ? Is naturally occurring ( as seen in the definition of indigenous ) intended to include those who slaughter the inhabitants of a given area and move in to inhabit that area ?

While war is a common incident, I don't see it as being intended in the meaning of "naturally occurring"

So by definition an indigenous people is one who must have either developed in a given area or be naturally occurring.

Which brings us to the question of how far back one goes in history in order to find an indigenous people.

In the case of the Canaan valley its about the middle bronze age.

Where we find the

drum roll please

Egyptians

Who were farming the Canaan valley area for quite some time. Undetermined amount of time actually. People argue the age of the pyramids endlessly. But for however long it was, it ended.

From what I recall ( called the late bronze age collapse ) it was a drought combined with pressure from waring factions in the nile delta area that convinced the Egyptians to leave their Canaan valley farmlands and retreat to defensive positions outside Canaan.

Which led to the more primitive mountain tribes in the area, members of the Hyksos group, to gradually descend into the valleys of Canaan and pick up where the Egyptians left off. These people would eventually develop into the Judaic tribes.

I believe this would be called "naturally occurring" and meet the definition of Indigenous.

Interestingly enough the evidence in the development of the Judaic people in Canaan bears no resemblance to the old testament story ( originally an oral history of the Judaic tribes ) of a diaspora and a brave expulsion from Egyptian servitude or even a conquest of Canaan. See Silberman and Finkelstein "The Bible Unearthed"

This development appears to have occurred without any major disruptions by either the Egyptians, Hittites or Assyrian empires. Who were dealing with their own problems at the time.

We all know what happened to the Egyptians, they're still with us. The Hittites had a tendency to go at it with the Assyrians once they became a player and oddly enough one of their more well known treaties as I recall considered the center of the Canaan valley as the armistice line. Ignoring any Hyksos claim to the area as any form of military power, indicating at this time they were still a primitive insignificant tribe or group of tribes. Pretty sure that was about 1200 BCE

The Hittites were eventually pretty much rubbed out by the Assyrians in a series of wars that generally resulted in a slight mixing of bloodlines and a decline of Hittite culture and language. The Hittites also were on the run long enough that they ended up well outside of anywhere it could be said they either "developed in or occurred naturally"

Its pretty easy to see that the Assyrians had pushed the Hittites all the way back through the Canaan valley, from their original homeland in what it today Turkey

So what happened to the Assyrians

They are still around wedged between Iraq and Turkey.

So in the end it was a primitive group known to archeologists as the Hyksos who in this particular area developed into the Judaic tribes inhabiting the mountain areas around the Canaan valley who stayed throughout the ebb and flow of waring early cultures. to this day. Even the Babylonians ( who spelled the end for the Assyrian dominance in the area ) couldn't manage to conquer the Judaic tribes at this point in history. Actually even the Romans didn't force every last Jew from the land. Even the worst of the pogroms failed. Israel is alive and well today, its people enjoy a distinct language, culture and nationality in both the ancient and modern sense.

PS
Not sure what this stuff is below but it doesn't show up in the edit box so I can't seem to get rid of it ;--)

While war is a common incident, I don't see it as being intended in the meaning of "naturally occurring"

So by definition an indigenous people is one who must have either developed in a given area or be naturally occurring.​

How would you define the people of Najd. The village of Najd precedes Ottoman rule. There is no history of those inhabitants displacing another people.

 

[Shusha]

How would you define the people of Najd. The village of Najd precedes Ottoman rule. There is no history of those inhabitants displacing another people.

Najd, near Gaza? What language do they speak? What customs do they follow? What religious faith do they practice? What legal system do they use? What clothing do they wear? What myths and stories do they tell?

 

[P F Tinmore]

How would you define the people of Najd. The village of Najd precedes Ottoman rule. There is no history of those inhabitants displacing another people.

Najd, near Gaza? What language do they speak? What customs do they follow? What religious faith do they practice? What legal system do they use? What clothing do they wear? What myths and stories do they tell?

What difference does it make? They were there for hundreds of years and there was nobody there before them.

 

[Shusha]

Residence, even for a long time, does not confer indigenousness. If their culture is that of an invading culture, then, by definition, they are not indigenous. The whole point of defining indigenous cultures is to preserve the culture of the pre-invasion peoples who developed on that land.

 

[montelatici]

Residence, even for a long time, does not confer indigenousness. If their culture is that of an invading culture, then, by definition, they are not indigenous. The whole point of defining indigenous cultures is to preserve the culture of the pre-invasion peoples who developed on that land.

The European Jews are certainly not indigenous to the Middle East or Palestine, so what's your point?

In any case the Palestinian Mandate refers to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and Article 22 refers to the inhabitants of the territory. The Palestinians were overwhelmingly the inhabitants when the Mandate was signed.

 

[Boston1]

The genetic tests are somewhat misleading. It very much depends on what markers you are looking for. We also have 99% in common with a chimp, but no one would suggest a chimp is indigenous to say, the Cherokee homelands. or the Iroquois. Of the 1% left over, there's still millions and millions of groupings typical of racial mixing. There's also the vetting process for picking subjects to represent certain groups. Lots of variables with the genetic studies that can skew the results. Hell there's even a fair share of bacterial DNA that gets mixed in depending on what foods you eat. The DNA tests become much more questionable when you delve deeper than the basics.

IMHO the definition of indigenous is also questionable with many people thinking its somehow time dependent, The subject in the USA became sufficiently contentious that the more accurate term, first nations people was applied.

Quote

1. 
   in·dig·e·nous
   inˈdijənəs/
   adjective
   1. originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.
      "the indigenous peoples of Siberia"
      synonyms: native, original, aboriginal, autochthonous;More
      
      End Quote

Because so many people don't pay much attention to actual meanings its easy for some to think that indigenous is something you can become if you live there for a few hundred years, its not. Ones people must originate in that specific location.

The term first nations was invented to try and help clear that up, but even that got muddied

With this in mind

Who is the first nation people of the Canaan valley area ?

Hands down its the Judaic people. Its really not even a question.

As we can see indigenous isn't defined as a genetic grouping. its an ethnic, national ( in the ancient meaning ) grouping. Ethnicity is another interesting word.

Quote
eth·nic
ˈeTHnik/
adjective

of or relating to a population subgroup (within a larger or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or cultural tradition.

End quote

So in order to be an indigenous people, one must have existed in a given location naturally or developed there.

Which brings us to the question, is war a natural condition. Is the meaning intended to address the basest of our traditions ? Does the term naturally imply that its normal for one persons tribe to slaughter the other ? Is naturally occurring ( as seen in the definition of indigenous ) intended to include those who slaughter the inhabitants of a given area and move in to inhabit that area ?

While war is a common incident, I don't see it as being intended in the meaning of "naturally occurring"

So by definition an indigenous people is one who must have either developed in a given area or be naturally occurring.

Which brings us to the question of how far back one goes in history in order to find an indigenous people.

In the case of the Canaan valley its about the middle bronze age.

Where we find the

drum roll please

Egyptians

Who were farming the Canaan valley area for quite some time. Undetermined amount of time actually. People argue the age of the pyramids endlessly. But for however long it was, it ended.

From what I recall ( called the late bronze age collapse ) it was a drought combined with pressure from waring factions in the nile delta area that convinced the Egyptians to leave their Canaan valley farmlands and retreat to defensive positions outside Canaan.

Which led to the more primitive mountain tribes in the area, members of the Hyksos group, to gradually descend into the valleys of Canaan and pick up where the Egyptians left off. These people would eventually develop into the Judaic tribes.

I believe this would be called "naturally occurring" and meet the definition of Indigenous.

Interestingly enough the evidence in the development of the Judaic people in Canaan bears no resemblance to the old testament story ( originally an oral history of the Judaic tribes ) of a diaspora and a brave expulsion from Egyptian servitude or even a conquest of Canaan. See Silberman and Finkelstein "The Bible Unearthed"

This development appears to have occurred without any major disruptions by either the Egyptians, Hittites or Assyrian empires. Who were dealing with their own problems at the time.

We all know what happened to the Egyptians, they're still with us. The Hittites had a tendency to go at it with the Assyrians once they became a player and oddly enough one of their more well known treaties as I recall considered the center of the Canaan valley as the armistice line. Ignoring any Hyksos claim to the area as any form of military power, indicating at this time they were still a primitive insignificant tribe or group of tribes. Pretty sure that was about 1200 BCE

The Hittites were eventually pretty much rubbed out by the Assyrians in a series of wars that generally resulted in a slight mixing of bloodlines and a decline of Hittite culture and language. The Hittites also were on the run long enough that they ended up well outside of anywhere it could be said they either "developed in or occurred naturally"

Its pretty easy to see that the Assyrians had pushed the Hittites all the way back through the Canaan valley, from their original homeland in what it today Turkey

So what happened to the Assyrians

They are still around wedged between Iraq and Turkey.

So in the end it was a primitive group known to archeologists as the Hyksos who in this particular area developed into the Judaic tribes inhabiting the mountain areas around the Canaan valley who stayed throughout the ebb and flow of waring early cultures. to this day. Even the Babylonians ( who spelled the end for the Assyrian dominance in the area ) couldn't manage to conquer the Judaic tribes at this point in history. Actually even the Romans didn't force every last Jew from the land. Even the worst of the pogroms failed. Israel is alive and well today, its people enjoy a distinct language, culture and nationality in both the ancient and modern sense.

PS
Not sure what this stuff is below but it doesn't show up in the edit box so I can't seem to get rid of it ;--)

While war is a common incident, I don't see it as being intended in the meaning of "naturally occurring"

So by definition an indigenous people is one who must have either developed in a given area or be naturally occurring.​

How would you define the people of Najd. The village of Najd precedes Ottoman rule. There is no history of those inhabitants displacing another people.

Never heard of it, but if its a village or a particular group of people they or it would have to precede the late bronze age collapse before it would even come close to dating back to the developing Judaic peoples.

Preceding Ottoman rule would but the development of Najd in about the 15th century CE or about 4500 years AFTER The protojudaic people inhabited the area.

In any case the 15th century CE is well within the era of the Arab Muslim colonization and long after anyone with a first nations claim developed in the area. Which archeology puts back in about the mid to early bronze age with the early Egyptians and the Mountain tribes of the Canaan valley area.

See
The Bible Unearthed - Top Documentary Films

Although the book is the way to go
Amazon.com: The Bible Unearthed: Israel Finkelstein, Neil ...

Monty, you are apparently emotionally incapable of facing the fact that only about 35% of todays inhabitants in Israel are returnees from Europe; although I did particularly like it when you presented immigration stats from ONLY European countries and then went on to claim it as proof that ALL the returnees came from Europe. I got a great laugh out of that one.

Once again, your hatred is blinding you

 

[montelatici]

The genetic tests are somewhat misleading. It very much depends on what markers you are looking for. We also have 99% in common with a chimp, but no one would suggest a chimp is indigenous to say, the Cherokee homelands. or the Iroquois. Of the 1% left over, there's still millions and millions of groupings typical of racial mixing. There's also the vetting process for picking subjects to represent certain groups. Lots of variables with the genetic studies that can skew the results. Hell there's even a fair share of bacterial DNA that gets mixed in depending on what foods you eat. The DNA tests become much more questionable when you delve deeper than the basics.

IMHO the definition of indigenous is also questionable with many people thinking its somehow time dependent, The subject in the USA became sufficiently contentious that the more accurate term, first nations people was applied.

Quote

1. 
   in·dig·e·nous
   inˈdijənəs/
   adjective
   1. originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.
      "the indigenous peoples of Siberia"
      synonyms: native, original, aboriginal, autochthonous;More
      
      End Quote

Because so many people don't pay much attention to actual meanings its easy for some to think that indigenous is something you can become if you live there for a few hundred years, its not. Ones people must originate in that specific location.

The term first nations was invented to try and help clear that up, but even that got muddied

With this in mind

Who is the first nation people of the Canaan valley area ?

Hands down its the Judaic people. Its really not even a question.

As we can see indigenous isn't defined as a genetic grouping. its an ethnic, national ( in the ancient meaning ) grouping. Ethnicity is another interesting word.

Quote
eth·nic
ˈeTHnik/
adjective

of or relating to a population subgroup (within a larger or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or cultural tradition.

End quote

So in order to be an indigenous people, one must have existed in a given location naturally or developed there.

Which brings us to the question, is war a natural condition. Is the meaning intended to address the basest of our traditions ? Does the term naturally imply that its normal for one persons tribe to slaughter the other ? Is naturally occurring ( as seen in the definition of indigenous ) intended to include those who slaughter the inhabitants of a given area and move in to inhabit that area ?

While war is a common incident, I don't see it as being intended in the meaning of "naturally occurring"

So by definition an indigenous people is one who must have either developed in a given area or be naturally occurring.

Which brings us to the question of how far back one goes in history in order to find an indigenous people.

In the case of the Canaan valley its about the middle bronze age.

Where we find the

drum roll please

Egyptians

Who were farming the Canaan valley area for quite some time. Undetermined amount of time actually. People argue the age of the pyramids endlessly. But for however long it was, it ended.

From what I recall ( called the late bronze age collapse ) it was a drought combined with pressure from waring factions in the nile delta area that convinced the Egyptians to leave their Canaan valley farmlands and retreat to defensive positions outside Canaan.

Which led to the more primitive mountain tribes in the area, members of the Hyksos group, to gradually descend into the valleys of Canaan and pick up where the Egyptians left off. These people would eventually develop into the Judaic tribes.

I believe this would be called "naturally occurring" and meet the definition of Indigenous.

Interestingly enough the evidence in the development of the Judaic people in Canaan bears no resemblance to the old testament story ( originally an oral history of the Judaic tribes ) of a diaspora and a brave expulsion from Egyptian servitude or even a conquest of Canaan. See Silberman and Finkelstein "The Bible Unearthed"

This development appears to have occurred without any major disruptions by either the Egyptians, Hittites or Assyrian empires. Who were dealing with their own problems at the time.

We all know what happened to the Egyptians, they're still with us. The Hittites had a tendency to go at it with the Assyrians once they became a player and oddly enough one of their more well known treaties as I recall considered the center of the Canaan valley as the armistice line. Ignoring any Hyksos claim to the area as any form of military power, indicating at this time they were still a primitive insignificant tribe or group of tribes. Pretty sure that was about 1200 BCE

The Hittites were eventually pretty much rubbed out by the Assyrians in a series of wars that generally resulted in a slight mixing of bloodlines and a decline of Hittite culture and language. The Hittites also were on the run long enough that they ended up well outside of anywhere it could be said they either "developed in or occurred naturally"

Its pretty easy to see that the Assyrians had pushed the Hittites all the way back through the Canaan valley, from their original homeland in what it today Turkey

So what happened to the Assyrians

They are still around wedged between Iraq and Turkey.

So in the end it was a primitive group known to archeologists as the Hyksos who in this particular area developed into the Judaic tribes inhabiting the mountain areas around the Canaan valley who stayed throughout the ebb and flow of waring early cultures. to this day. Even the Babylonians ( who spelled the end for the Assyrian dominance in the area ) couldn't manage to conquer the Judaic tribes at this point in history. Actually even the Romans didn't force every last Jew from the land. Even the worst of the pogroms failed. Israel is alive and well today, its people enjoy a distinct language, culture and nationality in both the ancient and modern sense.

PS
Not sure what this stuff is below but it doesn't show up in the edit box so I can't seem to get rid of it ;--)

While war is a common incident, I don't see it as being intended in the meaning of "naturally occurring"

So by definition an indigenous people is one who must have either developed in a given area or be naturally occurring.​

How would you define the people of Najd. The village of Najd precedes Ottoman rule. There is no history of those inhabitants displacing another people.

Never heard of it, but if its a village or a particular group of people they or it would have to precede the late bronze age collapse before it would even come close to dating back to the developing Judaic peoples.

Preceding Ottoman rule would but the development of Najd in about the 15th century CE or about 4500 years AFTER The protojudaic people inhabited the area.

In any case the 15th century CE is well within the era of the Arab Muslim colonization and long after anyone with a first nations claim developed in the area. Which archeology puts back in about the mid to early bronze age with the early Egyptians and the Mountain tribes of the Canaan valley area.

See
The Bible Unearthed - Top Documentary Films

Although the book is the way to go
Amazon.com: The Bible Unearthed: Israel Finkelstein, Neil ...

Monty, you are apparently emotionally incapable of facing the fact that only about 35% of todays inhabitants in Israel are returnees from Europe; although I did particularly like it when you presented immigration stats from ONLY European countries and then went on to claim it as proof that ALL the returnees came from Europe. I got a great laugh out of that one.

Once again, your hatred is blinding you

This hackneyed claim of hate is getting old. What is blinding you is your ignorance.

All the Jewish migrants to Israel were/are from somewhere else outside of Palestine. So it really doesn't matter, they were not inhabitants as per Artilcle 22 of the Covenant.

During the Mandate era, more than 90% of the Jewish migrants to Palestine were from Europe, that is just a fact.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The genetic tests are somewhat misleading. It very much depends on what markers you are looking for. We also have 99% in common with a chimp, but no one would suggest a chimp is indigenous to say, the Cherokee homelands. or the Iroquois. Of the 1% left over, there's still millions and millions of groupings typical of racial mixing. There's also the vetting process for picking subjects to represent certain groups. Lots of variables with the genetic studies that can skew the results. Hell there's even a fair share of bacterial DNA that gets mixed in depending on what foods you eat. The DNA tests become much more questionable when you delve deeper than the basics.

IMHO the definition of indigenous is also questionable with many people thinking its somehow time dependent, The subject in the USA became sufficiently contentious that the more accurate term, first nations people was applied.

Quote

1. 
   in·dig·e·nous
   inˈdijənəs/
   adjective
   1. originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.
      "the indigenous peoples of Siberia"
      synonyms: native, original, aboriginal, autochthonous;More
      
      End Quote

Because so many people don't pay much attention to actual meanings its easy for some to think that indigenous is something you can become if you live there for a few hundred years, its not. Ones people must originate in that specific location.

The term first nations was invented to try and help clear that up, but even that got muddied

With this in mind

Who is the first nation people of the Canaan valley area ?

Hands down its the Judaic people. Its really not even a question.

As we can see indigenous isn't defined as a genetic grouping. its an ethnic, national ( in the ancient meaning ) grouping. Ethnicity is another interesting word.

Quote
eth·nic
ˈeTHnik/
adjective

of or relating to a population subgroup (within a larger or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or cultural tradition.

End quote

So in order to be an indigenous people, one must have existed in a given location naturally or developed there.

Which brings us to the question, is war a natural condition. Is the meaning intended to address the basest of our traditions ? Does the term naturally imply that its normal for one persons tribe to slaughter the other ? Is naturally occurring ( as seen in the definition of indigenous ) intended to include those who slaughter the inhabitants of a given area and move in to inhabit that area ?

While war is a common incident, I don't see it as being intended in the meaning of "naturally occurring"

So by definition an indigenous people is one who must have either developed in a given area or be naturally occurring.

Which brings us to the question of how far back one goes in history in order to find an indigenous people.

In the case of the Canaan valley its about the middle bronze age.

Where we find the

drum roll please

Egyptians

Who were farming the Canaan valley area for quite some time. Undetermined amount of time actually. People argue the age of the pyramids endlessly. But for however long it was, it ended.

From what I recall ( called the late bronze age collapse ) it was a drought combined with pressure from waring factions in the nile delta area that convinced the Egyptians to leave their Canaan valley farmlands and retreat to defensive positions outside Canaan.

Which led to the more primitive mountain tribes in the area, members of the Hyksos group, to gradually descend into the valleys of Canaan and pick up where the Egyptians left off. These people would eventually develop into the Judaic tribes.

I believe this would be called "naturally occurring" and meet the definition of Indigenous.

Interestingly enough the evidence in the development of the Judaic people in Canaan bears no resemblance to the old testament story ( originally an oral history of the Judaic tribes ) of a diaspora and a brave expulsion from Egyptian servitude or even a conquest of Canaan. See Silberman and Finkelstein "The Bible Unearthed"

This development appears to have occurred without any major disruptions by either the Egyptians, Hittites or Assyrian empires. Who were dealing with their own problems at the time.

We all know what happened to the Egyptians, they're still with us. The Hittites had a tendency to go at it with the Assyrians once they became a player and oddly enough one of their more well known treaties as I recall considered the center of the Canaan valley as the armistice line. Ignoring any Hyksos claim to the area as any form of military power, indicating at this time they were still a primitive insignificant tribe or group of tribes. Pretty sure that was about 1200 BCE

The Hittites were eventually pretty much rubbed out by the Assyrians in a series of wars that generally resulted in a slight mixing of bloodlines and a decline of Hittite culture and language. The Hittites also were on the run long enough that they ended up well outside of anywhere it could be said they either "developed in or occurred naturally"

Its pretty easy to see that the Assyrians had pushed the Hittites all the way back through the Canaan valley, from their original homeland in what it today Turkey

So what happened to the Assyrians

They are still around wedged between Iraq and Turkey.

So in the end it was a primitive group known to archeologists as the Hyksos who in this particular area developed into the Judaic tribes inhabiting the mountain areas around the Canaan valley who stayed throughout the ebb and flow of waring early cultures. to this day. Even the Babylonians ( who spelled the end for the Assyrian dominance in the area ) couldn't manage to conquer the Judaic tribes at this point in history. Actually even the Romans didn't force every last Jew from the land. Even the worst of the pogroms failed. Israel is alive and well today, its people enjoy a distinct language, culture and nationality in both the ancient and modern sense.

PS
Not sure what this stuff is below but it doesn't show up in the edit box so I can't seem to get rid of it ;--)

While war is a common incident, I don't see it as being intended in the meaning of "naturally occurring"

So by definition an indigenous people is one who must have either developed in a given area or be naturally occurring.​

How would you define the people of Najd. The village of Najd precedes Ottoman rule. There is no history of those inhabitants displacing another people.

Never heard of it, but if its a village or a particular group of people they or it would have to precede the late bronze age collapse before it would even come close to dating back to the developing Judaic peoples.

Preceding Ottoman rule would but the development of Najd in about the 15th century CE or about 4500 years AFTER The protojudaic people inhabited the area.

In any case the 15th century CE is well within the era of the Arab Muslim colonization and long after anyone with a first nations claim developed in the area. Which archeology puts back in about the mid to early bronze age with the early Egyptians and the Mountain tribes of the Canaan valley area.

See
The Bible Unearthed - Top Documentary Films

Although the book is the way to go
Amazon.com: The Bible Unearthed: Israel Finkelstein, Neil ...

Monty, you are apparently emotionally incapable of facing the fact that only about 35% of todays inhabitants in Israel are returnees from Europe; although I did particularly like it when you presented immigration stats from ONLY European countries and then went on to claim it as proof that ALL the returnees came from Europe. I got a great laugh out of that one.

Once again, your hatred is blinding you

Do you have any proof that they were not there before the Jews or are you just babbling?

 

[Shusha]

Do you have any proof that they were not there before the Jews or are you just babbling?

Do you have any proof that they were? (And yes, invasion cultures, by definition, are the culture of the invading group and therefore not indigenous cultures.)

 

[Boston1]

The genetic tests are somewhat misleading. It very much depends on what markers you are looking for. We also have 99% in common with a chimp, but no one would suggest a chimp is indigenous to say, the Cherokee homelands. or the Iroquois. Of the 1% left over, there's still millions and millions of groupings typical of racial mixing. There's also the vetting process for picking subjects to represent certain groups. Lots of variables with the genetic studies that can skew the results. Hell there's even a fair share of bacterial DNA that gets mixed in depending on what foods you eat. The DNA tests become much more questionable when you delve deeper than the basics.

IMHO the definition of indigenous is also questionable with many people thinking its somehow time dependent, The subject in the USA became sufficiently contentious that the more accurate term, first nations people was applied.

Quote

1. 
   in·dig·e·nous
   inˈdijənəs/
   adjective
   1. originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.
      "the indigenous peoples of Siberia"
      synonyms: native, original, aboriginal, autochthonous;More
      
      End Quote

Because so many people don't pay much attention to actual meanings its easy for some to think that indigenous is something you can become if you live there for a few hundred years, its not. Ones people must originate in that specific location.

The term first nations was invented to try and help clear that up, but even that got muddied

With this in mind

Who is the first nation people of the Canaan valley area ?

Hands down its the Judaic people. Its really not even a question.

As we can see indigenous isn't defined as a genetic grouping. its an ethnic, national ( in the ancient meaning ) grouping. Ethnicity is another interesting word.

Quote
eth·nic
ˈeTHnik/
adjective

of or relating to a population subgroup (within a larger or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or cultural tradition.

End quote

So in order to be an indigenous people, one must have existed in a given location naturally or developed there.

Which brings us to the question, is war a natural condition. Is the meaning intended to address the basest of our traditions ? Does the term naturally imply that its normal for one persons tribe to slaughter the other ? Is naturally occurring ( as seen in the definition of indigenous ) intended to include those who slaughter the inhabitants of a given area and move in to inhabit that area ?

While war is a common incident, I don't see it as being intended in the meaning of "naturally occurring"

So by definition an indigenous people is one who must have either developed in a given area or be naturally occurring.

Which brings us to the question of how far back one goes in history in order to find an indigenous people.

In the case of the Canaan valley its about the middle bronze age.

Where we find the

drum roll please

Egyptians

Who were farming the Canaan valley area for quite some time. Undetermined amount of time actually. People argue the age of the pyramids endlessly. But for however long it was, it ended.

From what I recall ( called the late bronze age collapse ) it was a drought combined with pressure from waring factions in the nile delta area that convinced the Egyptians to leave their Canaan valley farmlands and retreat to defensive positions outside Canaan.

Which led to the more primitive mountain tribes in the area, members of the Hyksos group, to gradually descend into the valleys of Canaan and pick up where the Egyptians left off. These people would eventually develop into the Judaic tribes.

I believe this would be called "naturally occurring" and meet the definition of Indigenous.

Interestingly enough the evidence in the development of the Judaic people in Canaan bears no resemblance to the old testament story ( originally an oral history of the Judaic tribes ) of a diaspora and a brave expulsion from Egyptian servitude or even a conquest of Canaan. See Silberman and Finkelstein "The Bible Unearthed"

This development appears to have occurred without any major disruptions by either the Egyptians, Hittites or Assyrian empires. Who were dealing with their own problems at the time.

We all know what happened to the Egyptians, they're still with us. The Hittites had a tendency to go at it with the Assyrians once they became a player and oddly enough one of their more well known treaties as I recall considered the center of the Canaan valley as the armistice line. Ignoring any Hyksos claim to the area as any form of military power, indicating at this time they were still a primitive insignificant tribe or group of tribes. Pretty sure that was about 1200 BCE

The Hittites were eventually pretty much rubbed out by the Assyrians in a series of wars that generally resulted in a slight mixing of bloodlines and a decline of Hittite culture and language. The Hittites also were on the run long enough that they ended up well outside of anywhere it could be said they either "developed in or occurred naturally"

Its pretty easy to see that the Assyrians had pushed the Hittites all the way back through the Canaan valley, from their original homeland in what it today Turkey

So what happened to the Assyrians

They are still around wedged between Iraq and Turkey.

So in the end it was a primitive group known to archeologists as the Hyksos who in this particular area developed into the Judaic tribes inhabiting the mountain areas around the Canaan valley who stayed throughout the ebb and flow of waring early cultures. to this day. Even the Babylonians ( who spelled the end for the Assyrian dominance in the area ) couldn't manage to conquer the Judaic tribes at this point in history. Actually even the Romans didn't force every last Jew from the land. Even the worst of the pogroms failed. Israel is alive and well today, its people enjoy a distinct language, culture and nationality in both the ancient and modern sense.

PS
Not sure what this stuff is below but it doesn't show up in the edit box so I can't seem to get rid of it ;--)

While war is a common incident, I don't see it as being intended in the meaning of "naturally occurring"

So by definition an indigenous people is one who must have either developed in a given area or be naturally occurring.​

How would you define the people of Najd. The village of Najd precedes Ottoman rule. There is no history of those inhabitants displacing another people.

Never heard of it, but if its a village or a particular group of people they or it would have to precede the late bronze age collapse before it would even come close to dating back to the developing Judaic peoples.

Preceding Ottoman rule would but the development of Najd in about the 15th century CE or about 4500 years AFTER The protojudaic people inhabited the area.

In any case the 15th century CE is well within the era of the Arab Muslim colonization and long after anyone with a first nations claim developed in the area. Which archeology puts back in about the mid to early bronze age with the early Egyptians and the Mountain tribes of the Canaan valley area.

See
The Bible Unearthed - Top Documentary Films

Although the book is the way to go
Amazon.com: The Bible Unearthed: Israel Finkelstein, Neil ...

Monty, you are apparently emotionally incapable of facing the fact that only about 35% of todays inhabitants in Israel are returnees from Europe; although I did particularly like it when you presented immigration stats from ONLY European countries and then went on to claim it as proof that ALL the returnees came from Europe. I got a great laugh out of that one.

Once again, your hatred is blinding you

Do you have any proof that they were not there before the Jews or are you just babbling?

I think we can all see who's just babbling. Multiple proof have been offered in this and other threads and over and over again the supporters of Arab Muslim colonialism have ignored all facts and simply repeated the same old tired nonsense.

Is their proof LMAO

Need I really repeat myself so often ?

here's just one of the land mark works which embrace this issue

See
The Bible Unearthed - Top Documentary Films

Although the book is the way to go
Amazon.com: The Bible Unearthed: Israel Finkelstein, Neil ...

 

[P F Tinmore]

Do you have any proof that they were not there before the Jews or are you just babbling?

Do you have any proof that they were? (And yes, invasion cultures, by definition, are the culture of the invading group and therefore not indigenous cultures.)

Since it would be impossible to determine one way or the other, they just used the standard legal norm.

Anyone who normally lived in the area that became Palestine were Palestinian citizens.

Those who did not did not.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Do you have any proof that they were not there before the Jews or are you just babbling?

Do you have any proof that they were? (And yes, invasion cultures, by definition, are the culture of the invading group and therefore not indigenous cultures.)

Like the Hebrews invading from Egypt.

 

[montelatici]

The genetic tests are somewhat misleading. It very much depends on what markers you are looking for. We also have 99% in common with a chimp, but no one would suggest a chimp is indigenous to say, the Cherokee homelands. or the Iroquois. Of the 1% left over, there's still millions and millions of groupings typical of racial mixing. There's also the vetting process for picking subjects to represent certain groups. Lots of variables with the genetic studies that can skew the results. Hell there's even a fair share of bacterial DNA that gets mixed in depending on what foods you eat. The DNA tests become much more questionable when you delve deeper than the basics.

IMHO the definition of indigenous is also questionable with many people thinking its somehow time dependent, The subject in the USA became sufficiently contentious that the more accurate term, first nations people was applied.

Quote

1. 
   in·dig·e·nous
   inˈdijənəs/
   adjective
   1. originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.
      "the indigenous peoples of Siberia"
      synonyms: native, original, aboriginal, autochthonous;More
      
      End Quote

Because so many people don't pay much attention to actual meanings its easy for some to think that indigenous is something you can become if you live there for a few hundred years, its not. Ones people must originate in that specific location.

The term first nations was invented to try and help clear that up, but even that got muddied

With this in mind

Who is the first nation people of the Canaan valley area ?

Hands down its the Judaic people. Its really not even a question.

As we can see indigenous isn't defined as a genetic grouping. its an ethnic, national ( in the ancient meaning ) grouping. Ethnicity is another interesting word.

Quote
eth·nic
ˈeTHnik/
adjective

of or relating to a population subgroup (within a larger or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or cultural tradition.

End quote

So in order to be an indigenous people, one must have existed in a given location naturally or developed there.

Which brings us to the question, is war a natural condition. Is the meaning intended to address the basest of our traditions ? Does the term naturally imply that its normal for one persons tribe to slaughter the other ? Is naturally occurring ( as seen in the definition of indigenous ) intended to include those who slaughter the inhabitants of a given area and move in to inhabit that area ?

While war is a common incident, I don't see it as being intended in the meaning of "naturally occurring"

So by definition an indigenous people is one who must have either developed in a given area or be naturally occurring.

Which brings us to the question of how far back one goes in history in order to find an indigenous people.

In the case of the Canaan valley its about the middle bronze age.

Where we find the

drum roll please

Egyptians

Who were farming the Canaan valley area for quite some time. Undetermined amount of time actually. People argue the age of the pyramids endlessly. But for however long it was, it ended.

From what I recall ( called the late bronze age collapse ) it was a drought combined with pressure from waring factions in the nile delta area that convinced the Egyptians to leave their Canaan valley farmlands and retreat to defensive positions outside Canaan.

Which led to the more primitive mountain tribes in the area, members of the Hyksos group, to gradually descend into the valleys of Canaan and pick up where the Egyptians left off. These people would eventually develop into the Judaic tribes.

I believe this would be called "naturally occurring" and meet the definition of Indigenous.

Interestingly enough the evidence in the development of the Judaic people in Canaan bears no resemblance to the old testament story ( originally an oral history of the Judaic tribes ) of a diaspora and a brave expulsion from Egyptian servitude or even a conquest of Canaan. See Silberman and Finkelstein "The Bible Unearthed"

This development appears to have occurred without any major disruptions by either the Egyptians, Hittites or Assyrian empires. Who were dealing with their own problems at the time.

We all know what happened to the Egyptians, they're still with us. The Hittites had a tendency to go at it with the Assyrians once they became a player and oddly enough one of their more well known treaties as I recall considered the center of the Canaan valley as the armistice line. Ignoring any Hyksos claim to the area as any form of military power, indicating at this time they were still a primitive insignificant tribe or group of tribes. Pretty sure that was about 1200 BCE

The Hittites were eventually pretty much rubbed out by the Assyrians in a series of wars that generally resulted in a slight mixing of bloodlines and a decline of Hittite culture and language. The Hittites also were on the run long enough that they ended up well outside of anywhere it could be said they either "developed in or occurred naturally"

Its pretty easy to see that the Assyrians had pushed the Hittites all the way back through the Canaan valley, from their original homeland in what it today Turkey

So what happened to the Assyrians

They are still around wedged between Iraq and Turkey.

So in the end it was a primitive group known to archeologists as the Hyksos who in this particular area developed into the Judaic tribes inhabiting the mountain areas around the Canaan valley who stayed throughout the ebb and flow of waring early cultures. to this day. Even the Babylonians ( who spelled the end for the Assyrian dominance in the area ) couldn't manage to conquer the Judaic tribes at this point in history. Actually even the Romans didn't force every last Jew from the land. Even the worst of the pogroms failed. Israel is alive and well today, its people enjoy a distinct language, culture and nationality in both the ancient and modern sense.

PS
Not sure what this stuff is below but it doesn't show up in the edit box so I can't seem to get rid of it ;--)

While war is a common incident, I don't see it as being intended in the meaning of "naturally occurring"

So by definition an indigenous people is one who must have either developed in a given area or be naturally occurring.​

How would you define the people of Najd. The village of Najd precedes Ottoman rule. There is no history of those inhabitants displacing another people.

Never heard of it, but if its a village or a particular group of people they or it would have to precede the late bronze age collapse before it would even come close to dating back to the developing Judaic peoples.

Preceding Ottoman rule would but the development of Najd in about the 15th century CE or about 4500 years AFTER The protojudaic people inhabited the area.

In any case the 15th century CE is well within the era of the Arab Muslim colonization and long after anyone with a first nations claim developed in the area. Which archeology puts back in about the mid to early bronze age with the early Egyptians and the Mountain tribes of the Canaan valley area.

See
The Bible Unearthed - Top Documentary Films

Although the book is the way to go
Amazon.com: The Bible Unearthed: Israel Finkelstein, Neil ...

Monty, you are apparently emotionally incapable of facing the fact that only about 35% of todays inhabitants in Israel are returnees from Europe; although I did particularly like it when you presented immigration stats from ONLY European countries and then went on to claim it as proof that ALL the returnees came from Europe. I got a great laugh out of that one.

Once again, your hatred is blinding you

Do you have any proof that they were not there before the Jews or are you just babbling?

I think we can all see who's just babbling. Multiple proof have been offered and over and over again the supporters of Arab Muslim colonialism have ignored all facts and simply repeated the same old tired nonsense.

Is their proof LMAO

Need I really repeat myself so often ?

One moment please

No proof, just your usual propaganda Boston. You are great for laughs though. The only colonists in Palestine are the Zionist Jews.


"Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ

July 25, 1926​

London (Jul. 23)
(Jewish Telegraphic Agency)
The various phases of the present situation in Palestine and in the Zionist movement throughout the world, and plans of Zionist leadership for the immediate future, were submitted for consideration at the Zionist Actions Committee which opened its session here yesterday.
“Due to the success of our colonization work in Palestine proper, it is possible that eventually our colonization work will be extended beyond the frontiers of Transjordania. It is true that the Palestine government has not taken a clear stand in regard to its economic policy, but well founded demands have every prospect of being agreed to. A great deal has been achieved during the last months,” Dr. Weizmann said."

http://www.jta.org/1926/07/25/archi...stine-frontier-weizmann-tells-actions-committ

 

[Shusha]

Since it would be impossible to determine one way or the other, they just used the standard legal norm.

Anyone who normally lived in the area that became Palestine were Palestinian citizens.

Those who did not did not.

But residence is not equivalent to indigenousness. So the people of the village of Najd were residents. This does not give them the status of being indigenous. And of course, having the culture of an invading peoples they can not be considered indigenous.

 

[Boston1]

Do you have any proof that they were not there before the Jews or are you just babbling?

Do you have any proof that they were? (And yes, invasion cultures, by definition, are the culture of the invading group and therefore not indigenous cultures.)

Like the Hebrews invading from Egypt.

Speaking of no proof, its a lie to suggest the Judaic people came from Egypt. Firstly even if you do take the bible story at face value then they still arrived in the Canaan valley about 3000 years BEFORE the Arab Muslim colonists.

As for that other little ditty about what defines a palestinian, your version as usual is a tad disingenuous since you left off the most important criteria. Oh and if you are going to quote the UN then lets keep it in context by including the ENTIRE definition ;--)

Quote
WHO ARE PALESTINE REFUGEES?

Palestine refugees are defined as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.”
UNRWA services are available to all those living in its area of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. The descendants of Palestine refugee males, including adopted children, are also eligible for registration. When the Agency began operations in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees. Today, some 5 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services.

End Quote

So its not simply people who fell under the citizenship order, that expired with the end of the mandate period. Now its a definition provided by the UN that defines who a palestinian is, and as we all can see its not dependent on anything but location within a two year period.

Show us a similar definition used to define nationality or an indigenous designation ;--)


Your argument falls flat at ever turn. The original inhabitants appear to be the Egyptians who later abandoned the area in the late bronze age collapse at which point the more primitive people living in the mountainous areas ( the proto Judaic people ) began to develop into the tribes eventually associated with Jewish character.

All this about 4500 years BEFORE the first Arab Muslim colonists ever arrived

 

[montelatici]

Since it would be impossible to determine one way or the other, they just used the standard legal norm.

Anyone who normally lived in the area that became Palestine were Palestinian citizens.

Those who did not did not.

But residence is not equivalent to indigenousness. So the people of the village of Najd were residents. This does not give them the status of being indigenous. And of course, having the culture of an invading peoples they can not be considered indigenous.

Look, the Jews were from somewhere outside of Palestine and invaded the area, so they are not indigenous.

The Covenant of the League of Nations which legalized the Mandates referred to the "inhabitants" as having the right to being helped in their "well-being and development" by the Mandatory. Full stop.