Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
freem
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Openai/693bdacb-35a8-8012-9fdf-153296aba70f
(section)
Add languages
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
=== Assistant: Because indigeneity is not a neutral anthropological category; it’s a post-WWII legal–political construct designed for … === Because indigeneity is not a neutral anthropological category; it’s a post-WWII legal–political construct designed for a specific historical problem. Key reasons it doesn’t extend to Europe: # Functional definition, not temporal priority In international law (UNDRIP, ILO 169), “indigenous” means pre-colonial peoples subordinated by an external settler state, not “who was here first.” Europe lacks a durable settler/subject dichotomy imposed from outside. # Continuity of sovereignty European peoples generally retained or reconstituted political sovereignty on their own territory. Indigeneity frameworks exist to address peoples who lost sovereignty and remain governed by non-native elites. # Colonizer framing of modern history Europe is treated as the source of colonialism, not its victim. The category is asymmetrical by design; extending it to Europeans collapses the moral architecture of post-colonial theory. # Ethnogenesis vs. displacement narrative European populations are seen as products of continuous ethnogenesis (migration, mixing, conquest among peers), not as peoples frozen in a pre-conquest state displaced by outsiders. # Power politics Indigeneity functions as a compensatory status for minorities without state power. Europeans are global majorities in capital, institutions, and historical authorship, so the category is withheld regardless of ancestry. # Explicit exceptions prove the rule Groups like the Sámi are recognized as indigenous precisely because they fit the model: non-state peoples subordinated within European states. Most Europeans do not. Bottom line: indigeneity is a remedial doctrine, not a universal principle. It applies where a people is politically dominated on its ancestral land by a foreign civilizational project. Europe doesn’t fit the use-case, so it’s excluded by definition, not accident.
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to freem are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (see
Freem:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)