5pFredo wrote:ursaminortaur wrote:You are misunderstanding the point I'm making. I'm saying that none of them are indigenous and that none of the descendents of the Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings , Normans etc are indigenous either.
As to all groups not being indigenous - that isn't true. Isolated groups such as the Aborigines in Australia or the Native Americans in America can put forward a fairly solid claim to be indigenous (though I believe there have been some recent disputes over whether the native american's were actually the first people in america).
No pal I didnt misunderstand, as I replied in my post stating that going back so far renders the whole argument pointless, as also you partially agree with as per your response about the natives not being the first... its almost impossible and ends up too encompassing.
Anyway, lets use your recent idea and alter the argument slightly - If this issue were about some Islamic group arriving in Australia for 50 years and then claiming to be the indigenous - your example country to showcase indigenous purity - you will only then move the goal posts and bring up something else to justify the claim to the land?
You wouldnt respond with " o well, they are clearly the indigenous, we had all better go home to where we came from"
Which proves my point here.
Unless the Islamic group got there before the aborigines then they would not be indigenous - which is clearly impossible since Islam did not come into existence until the early 7th Century AD.
Indigenous peoples, also known as First peoples, Aboriginal peoples or Native peoples, are ethnic groups who are the original settlers of a given region, in contrast to groups that have settled, occupied or colonized the area more recently.