3 ms·

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 a

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.