4 ms·

> indigenous | ɪnˈdɪdʒɪnəs | > adjective > originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native: the indigenous peoples of Siberia | coriander is

> indigenous | ɪnˈdɪdʒɪnəs | > adjective > originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native: the indigenous peoples of Siberia | coriander is indigenous to southern Europe.

wolverine876 4y ago
That doesn't address the issues? Obviously from the GP, I checked out a dictionary already.
- simongray 4y ago
  I think it's a pointless exercise. European ethnicities are indigenous to various parts of Europe, Scandinavians are indigenous to Scandinavia, Sami indigenous to Northern Scandinavia, and so on. They are all indigenous in the proper context, it's not some exclusionary label.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    > I think it's a pointless exercise. You raised the issue! But that's always an answer, to dismiss everything. Clearly there are differences between those examples. Oh well. Have a good one!
  - 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
    The Sami count as indigenous because they're not a majority in their ancestral lands. I don't think anyone is trying to dispute that Germmanic peoples are native to northern Germany and southern Scandinavia.
    - simongray 4y ago
      I'm not disputing the fact that Sami are indigenous to the place they live (most humans are), I'm disputing this weird definition of indigenous which seems to align more to the noble savage concept than the actual meaning of indigenous. Secondly, if you want to segment the world into mutually exclusive "indigenous" areas (I find this kind of offensive to be honest), you should make sure you're actually right. Germanic peoples were present in all of Scandinavia before the Sami migrated there, not just the south. But like I said, I have no problem saying the Sami are indigenous to Northern Scandinavia because being indigenous to an area is not an exclusionary label.
      - wolverine876 4y ago
        > if you want to segment the world into mutually exclusive "indigenous" areas I think that's taking the conversation to an extreme, and then finding offense in the extreme you created. > I find this kind of offensive to be honest How does it offend you?
      - 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
        It's litterally the definition that is used to justify the classification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples#United_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples#United_Nati... Long story short: If an ethnic group is a majority, it's not going to be recognized as indigenous. EWe can argue about the definition as much as we like, and you're absolutely right re. the Germanic peoples having lived in the Nordics for longer than the Finnic ones have, but for all practical intents and purposes, governments, and international organizations will consider the Sami indigenous.

> indigenous | ɪnˈdɪdʒɪnəs | > adjective > originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native: the indigenous peoples of Siberia | coriander is indigenous to southern Europe.

wolverine876 4y ago

That doesn't address the issues? Obviously from the GP, I checked out a dictionary already.

simongray 4y ago
I think it's a pointless exercise. European ethnicities are indigenous to various parts of Europe, Scandinavians are indigenous to Scandinavia, Sami indigenous to Northern Scandinavia, and so on. They are all indigenous in the proper context, it's not some exclusionary label.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > I think it's a pointless exercise. You raised the issue! But that's always an answer, to dismiss everything. Clearly there are differences between those examples. Oh well. Have a good one!
- 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
  The Sami count as indigenous because they're not a majority in their ancestral lands. I don't think anyone is trying to dispute that Germmanic peoples are native to northern Germany and southern Scandinavia.
  - simongray 4y ago
    I'm not disputing the fact that Sami are indigenous to the place they live (most humans are), I'm disputing this weird definition of indigenous which seems to align more to the noble savage concept than the actual meaning of indigenous. Secondly, if you want to segment the world into mutually exclusive "indigenous" areas (I find this kind of offensive to be honest), you should make sure you're actually right. Germanic peoples were present in all of Scandinavia before the Sami migrated there, not just the south. But like I said, I have no problem saying the Sami are indigenous to Northern Scandinavia because being indigenous to an area is not an exclusionary label.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      > if you want to segment the world into mutually exclusive "indigenous" areas I think that's taking the conversation to an extreme, and then finding offense in the extreme you created. > I find this kind of offensive to be honest How does it offend you?
    - 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
      It's litterally the definition that is used to justify the classification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples#United_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples#United_Nati... Long story short: If an ethnic group is a majority, it's not going to be recognized as indigenous. EWe can argue about the definition as much as we like, and you're absolutely right re. the Germanic peoples having lived in the Nordics for longer than the Finnic ones have, but for all practical intents and purposes, governments, and international organizations will consider the Sami indigenous.