4 ms·

How long ago do you have to arrive in a place to be “indigenous”?

EliRivers 7y ago
Depends on how recently the Johnny-come-latelys who wish you weren't there first got there.
jdavis703 7y ago
I think indigenous colloquially means the people who first used the land (e.g. hunting, farming, seasonal migrations, etc). So it’s not based on length of time, but order of arrival.
- runarberg 7y ago
  It's not so simple. Before the indigenous Inuits migrated to Greenland there were other people groups there. There were the Dorosets and some people even believe the Norse arrived in Greenland a quite a few decades before the Inuit settled. So the Inuit were by no means the first people to use the land they currently occupy, yet nobody will dispute their claims of being indigenous to their lands. Contrast this also to the Faeroe Islands (another Danish colony in the North Atlantic) whose current people group settled there centuries before the Inuit settled Greenland, were (arguably[1]) the first people there. You’d definitely raise an eyebrow if you’d hear them being called indigenous. In short. Being the first people group to use the land is neither necessary nor sufficient for being indigenous. --- 1: The islands might have been settled earlier by Irish monks, however (unlike the modern Norse settlers) they never established settlements that lasted for generations.
- crooked-v 7y ago
  I'd consider it a combination of factors between (a) living there first and (b) not having local control of land recognized by colonizers, even in a superficial way (as the British did with India).
- aeturnum 7y ago
  I think this is generally true, but it might be more correct to say this: The oldest surviving culture(s) for a particular landmass and / or the existing culture(s) present for the first wave of recorded migration. We have good evidence that the Mayan and Aztec peoples had groups that preceded them on the land, but they are still indigenous.
krapp 7y ago
Ten thousand years ago seems like a nice, round number to start at.
- Balero 7y ago
  So the Maori aren't indigenous to New Zealand? The current best guess is that they arrives around 1280[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_New_Zealand
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - krapp 7y ago
    Fair enough, some parts of the world were settled relatively recently, so outliers will exist. I did say it was a number to start at, not an absolute limit. If the Maori were the first people to settle New Zealand, then yes, they are indigenous, otherwise no, the people they displaced were more likely indigenous. In either case, the people who came after the Maori will never be indigenous no matter how settled they are.

Depends on how recently the Johnny-come-latelys who wish you weren't there first got there.

I think indigenous colloquially means the people who first used the land (e.g. hunting, farming, seasonal migrations, etc). So it’s not based on length of time, but order of arrival.

runarberg 7y ago
It's not so simple. Before the indigenous Inuits migrated to Greenland there were other people groups there. There were the Dorosets and some people even believe the Norse arrived in Greenland a quite a few decades before the Inuit settled. So the Inuit were by no means the first people to use the land they currently occupy, yet nobody will dispute their claims of being indigenous to their lands. Contrast this also to the Faeroe Islands (another Danish colony in the North Atlantic) whose current people group settled there centuries before the Inuit settled Greenland, were (arguably[1]) the first people there. You’d definitely raise an eyebrow if you’d hear them being called indigenous. In short. Being the first people group to use the land is neither necessary nor sufficient for being indigenous. --- 1: The islands might have been settled earlier by Irish monks, however (unlike the modern Norse settlers) they never established settlements that lasted for generations.
crooked-v 7y ago
I'd consider it a combination of factors between (a) living there first and (b) not having local control of land recognized by colonizers, even in a superficial way (as the British did with India).
aeturnum 7y ago
I think this is generally true, but it might be more correct to say this: The oldest surviving culture(s) for a particular landmass and / or the existing culture(s) present for the first wave of recorded migration. We have good evidence that the Mayan and Aztec peoples had groups that preceded them on the land, but they are still indigenous.

krapp 7y ago

Ten thousand years ago seems like a nice, round number to start at.

Balero 7y ago
So the Maori aren't indigenous to New Zealand? The current best guess is that they arrives around 1280[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_New_Zealand
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- krapp 7y ago
  Fair enough, some parts of the world were settled relatively recently, so outliers will exist. I did say it was a number to start at, not an absolute limit. If the Maori were the first people to settle New Zealand, then yes, they are indigenous, otherwise no, the people they displaced were more likely indigenous. In either case, the people who came after the Maori will never be indigenous no matter how settled they are.