RockRabbit wrote: Anglo-Saxons aren't indigenous - they invaded England from northern Europe!
From Wiktionary:
"
indigenous
Born or originating in, native to a land or region, especially before an intrusion. [from 17th c.]
In particular, of or relating to a people (or their language or culture) that inhabited a region prior to the arrival of people of other cultures which became dominant (e.g., through colonialism), and which maintains a distinct culture.
The Ainu are the indigenous ethnic group of Japan's Hokkaido Island.
Innate, inborn. [from 19th c.] "
And Anglo-Saxons came before the Norman intrusion and dominance. The Angles in particular seem to have fully settled here without any remaining in modern-day Denmark where they came from. I'd say it takes a few hundred years for a culture to become fully indigenous and rooted in the land they're living in, perhaps less if they're motivated (Hugenots maybe?); which is where many modern-day immigrants haven't made that transition yet if they're still identifying with a mother culture somewhere else like Asia or Africa.
tjh290633 wrote: If you have Celtic ancestry, you may well be indigenous.
TJH
Both are indigenous imo, the Celts have been here somewhat longer but by a similar process of invasion/migration as the Anglo-Saxons (who were initially invited here by the Celts as mercenaries like the Romans were too, if I remember my history correctly). Celts (an Iron age people) took over from the previous bronze age culture sometime in the first millennium BC: so if they can become indigenous over time why not the Anglo-Saxons?
scrumpyjack wrote:
I doubt if there are any indigenous people anywhere. Humans have been migrating around the planet for tens of thousands of years. I suppose it just depends how long you feel a racial group has to have been in one place before it becomes indigenous.
For example in the USA there are no indigenous people. The ancestors of contemporary American Indians were members of nomadic hunting and gathering cultures. These peoples travelled in small family-based bands that moved from Asia to North America during the last ice age; from approximately 30,000–12,000 years ago, sea levels were so low that a “land bridge” connecting the two continents was exposed. Some bands followed the Pacific coast southward, and others followed a glacier-free corridor through the centre of what is now Canada.
All the immigrants from Europe are clearly more recent but are all 'colonialists'. Rather ironic how the anti-Brit NY Times castigates us British colonialists. Pots and Kettles!
Depends on your definition of 'indigenous' I guess - at one extreme it could mean people who physically evolved in a place and didn't move away, so that limits us somewhat.
The USA is an interesting example; in my definition of a few hundred years of putting down roots and ancestry in a place, the European immigrants there are reaching that timescale, yet many seem not to want to become indigenous as they identify as things like Irish-American, Italian-American, WASP and so forth. Of course they were 'colonialists' as when you immigrate to a new country and create new settlements you are creating colonies. I suspect that a problem with creating a new American indigenous identity (despite the significant miscegenation) is that the country is so big, too big perhaps to coalesce as a single tribe. Who knows, perhaps their long-term future will look somewhat similar to their past with a variety of tribes of indigenous peoples each with a distinct culture. Unless modernity prevents the situation from settling down.
