From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WHAT indigenous people?
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:09:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Oct15.034940.21871@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1bf6k9INNbgu@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
>    >It does depend on how we handle the definition of indigenous
>    >people. The Native American people who were here on the
>    >arrival of the Europeans, had been here for possibility a
>    >very long time, in relationship to our having been here. Many
>    >of us measure on lineage here as only a few or less
>    >generations. These people can measure it as thousands of
>    >years. With that we need to understand 'how long does it take
>    >to become indigenous?'
>
>What does that have to do with ANYTHING?
>
You could stand to be a little clearer about your question- since I am not
sure what it points to as written above.

You missed the content.  We have a situation in which we want to define indigenous
peoples.  We must base it upon time, since all living things adapt to their 
environment is some form.  Plants, animals, and peoples who move to new places
and stay for what is considered a long duration, could be called indigenous to
the area.

Definitions of this type allow us to differentiate so that we may make better
judgements about things.  It is obviously to late to change anything about the
past, as far as, who lived where, who has the right to the land?, etc. But now
at least we can be aware of what has happened, and go from there to make things
a little better.

>If you assert that it gives the Indians a "better" claim to the land or
>such, then better think again. Most of South Africa was settled FIRST
>by white men -- the bulk of blacks there now are much later arrivals.
>

But I would say that there were no 'known' white indigenous people in Africa.
And I would venture to say that there 'small' tribes of Africans located within
what is now South Africa, and even at worst, it is possible that tribes in surrounding
areas concerned this area to be open to all tribes for hunting, gathering etc.

When you live the western world based upon nations, countries, and all of the
concepts that go with it, it is hard to justify moving into territories that do
not belong to you, by any giving mandate or political consenses.  These 'lands' may
be the home of others- they may not show you papers of ownership, because their 
cultures did not have those conceptions...  Instead we invaded, took what we wanted,
and left many of the 'indigenous' people in ruins... coercion?????  Do I smell a
hit of coercion????

How do you view the fact that the Jewish Nation was re-settled based upon
biblical or cultural right to the land?

Was it fair to establish Israel with no concern for the people who were living there
at the time?

What would be your view, if say another group of people came to area where you lived
and forced you off of your property, took what they wanted from you, and settled the
area, and then placed 'your kind' in reservations?  Hmmm! does not sound pretty.  And
yes I will give you the fact that you will fight to keep what is yours, etc.  But we
will assume the new arrivals are far more powerful than you.

>
>-- 
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
>