| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Aboriginal peoples in your country
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Aboriginal peoples in your country

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 19>
Author
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Aboriginal peoples in your country
    Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 02:05
Do you have any aboriginal or tribal peoples in your country?
 
Here we have the Sami people of northern Sweden (and Norway, Finland and the Russian Kola peninsula) that are recognized as an aboriginal or indigenous people of northern Scandinavia and Russia.
 
They are about 80 000 people (20 000 in Sweden) and their language(s) belong to the Finnish Ugrish languages in the Ural language family.
An important part of the Sami cultural heritage is reindeer herding a cultural trait they share with other peoples living eastwards in siberia, peoples as the Samojeds, Ostjaks, Evenks, Jukagirians, Tjutki and the Korjaks.
They also share some other cultural traits as shamanistic religion and the shamans drum.
 
From the 17th century Samis have been opressed and they were under long periods forbidden to express their own religious beliefs and also sometimes to talk their own language. But later there have been a renaissance for their culture, language and even their old religious beliefs. Today many Sami youth take much pride in their culture and most Sami artists are now singing in their own language often mixing traditional songs with modern music.
 
Here is one of our young Sami artists with a beautiful song:
 
 
 
Sami singer Sofia Jannok
 
 



Edited by Carcharodon - 12 Jul 2009 at 02:17
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 03:10
Just how are you defining "aboriginal", Carch?
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 05:23
Well these definitions cover at least partly the definition of aboriginal:
 
Pertaining to things or land or person or members of a race, which are indigenous to, or first occupied a specified territory.
 
Woodward adopts this definition:
"(I)nhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists."
 
The Oxford Dictionary suggests in regards to aboriginal:
"First or earliest so far as history or science gives record; the earliest known inhabitants .. as distinguished from subsequent European colonists."
 
Some more definitions are mentioned here:
 
Maybe one in this thread does not have to problematize the definition to much. I think most have some understanding what the term means.


Edited by Carcharodon - 12 Jul 2009 at 05:27
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 08:21
I wonder about when it's relevant to talk about Aboriginal people? We don't have anyone else but ourselves here that fits, so you could say we're the aboriginal population here, but normally that wouldn't be the word used to describe the population.
According to the normal usage, which seems to be relevant when there's more than one group in a country, I guess we have none. But compared to immigrants, we actually are the "Aboriginal population" here, no?
We call the Sami "urfolk" which I guess is our word for Aboriginal, but it also implies people who live in some sort of traditional pre-industrial way.
 
In norway and Sweden, are the Sámi really more aboriginal than other people? They may be aboriginal to certain areas, but I think other people have lived in the countries for just as long?
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 09:50
Quote

From the 17th century Samis have been opressed and they were under long periods forbidden to express their own religious beliefs and also sometimes to talk their own language. But later there have been a renaissance for their culture, language and even their old religious beliefs. Today many Sami youth take much pride in their culture and most Sami artists are now singing in their own language often mixing traditional songs with modern music.

Swedes are also aboriginals in Sweden, and they have also been opressed and they had not only their religion forbidden, they have also been forcibly converted - twice.



Edited by Styrbiorn - 12 Jul 2009 at 09:52
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 11:05
Well, the Samis are aboriginal to certain areas in Northern Scandinavia. If they are aboriginal to the landscapes more southward is a question that is debated, among others by historians and archaeologists.
Sweden has not been colonized by outsiders in the same way as Samis has been. Also they have not been forced by other peoples to change religion, those descisions were made by the governing elite among the Swedes themselves. The Samis were more or less colonized and were forced to change religion by foreigners with another language and culture.
The Swedish (and other Scandinavian) society has also enchraoahed on traditional Sami land and exploited natural resources there. So for the most norhtern parts of Sweden (and for the  norhter parts of Scandinavia as a whole) Samis can be said to be an aboriginal people who has faced, and in some extent, still faces similar problems as many other aboriginal peoples in the world.
 
Recently the Swedish authorities has recognized the samis as an aboriginal people (ursprungsbefolkning) and the Samis are also referring to themselves in that way.
 
 
A Sami drum, a symbol for Sami culture and old religion that for quite a while was prohibited:
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 11:23
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Well, the Samis are aboriginal to certain areas in Northern Scandinavia. If they are aboriginal to the landscapes more southward is a question that is debated, among others by historians and archaeologists.
Sweden has not been colonized by outsiders in the same way as Samis has been. Also they have not been forced by other peoples to change religion, those descisions were made by the governing elite among the Swedes themselves. The Samis were more or less colonized and were forced to change religion by foreigners with another language and culture.
The Swedish (and other Scandinavian) society has also enchraoahed on traditional Sami land and exploited natural resources there. So for the most norhtern parts of Sweden (and for the  norhter parts of Scandinavia as a whole) Samis can be said to be an aboriginal people who has faced, and in some extent, still faces similar problems as many other aboriginal peoples in the world.
The Swedes were also forced to change religion. That the enforcement were made by kings who happened to be (partly) of the same ethnicity doesn't change that fact. Their lands and rights to the lands were stolen by the crown in exactly the same way as what happened to the Samis. The exploitation that was made by the Crowns also affected the other original inhabitants: the Scandinavians.  Jämtland and Härjedalen, which have small recent Sami populations, were conquered by the Swedes and their land stolen. The original inhabitants, the Jamts, or Norwegians or whatever you consider them, are now considered to be Swedes and therefore the oppression  somehow disappeared, whereas the Samis have exclusive fishing, hunting and herding privileges. I find it highly racist that just because the Sami are of a different ethnicity, they are treated in a different way (and only some of them by them way, it's only the fraction who owns reindeers who have lots of special rights).
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 11:31
Well since they are indigenous to their lands and on top of that a rather small minority who had been forced to put up with invading Scandinavians for rather a while now they ought to be entitled to some rights. In their areas they were actually first and people of other ethnicity encroached on their land. For such a thing it is reasonable that they are compensated. They never asked to have Swedes, Norwegians, Finns or Russians coming into their lands and starting to order them around.
 
So it is rather suitable that the Swedish majority today recognizes at least some of the rights of the Samis by means of democratic descision.
 
But I also agree that the position and the rights for those Samis that do not own reindeer ought be strenghten.


Edited by Carcharodon - 12 Jul 2009 at 11:40
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 11:41

First of all, the Scandinavian settlers in the Norrland coast didn't steal land: they settled wilderness and lived side by side with the Sami or Kvens. Second of all, there is no archaeological evidence that Sami were the first in Jämtland and Härjedalen. The nomad and agricultural populations have both been there for thousands of years and are genetically related. The settled people (Norwegians or Jamts) of those lands never asked any Swedes to come and conquer them either. The theft of land and right was commited by the State, not the Swedes in general, and affected aboriginal Scandinavians as much as aboriginal Samis. There is no logical way to argue that Samis should have more fishing or hunting rights than natives of other ethnicities. 

Do you also argue that Swedes should have more rights than immigrants?



Edited by Styrbiorn - 12 Jul 2009 at 11:42
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 11:52
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

First of all, the Scandinavian settlers in the Norrland coast didn't steal land: they settled wilderness and lived side by side with the Sami or Kvens. Second of all, there is no archaeological evidence that Sami were the first in Jämtland and Härjedalen. The nomad and agricultural populations have both been there for thousands of years and are genetically related. The settled people (Norwegians or Jamts) of those lands never asked any Swedes to come and conquer them either. The theft of land and right was commited by the State, not the Swedes in general, and affected aboriginal Scandinavians as much as aboriginal Samis. There is no logical way to argue that Samis should have more fishing or hunting rights than natives of other ethnicities. 

Do you also argue that Swedes should have more rights than immigrants?

 
Well, most of the Swedish people has already democratically descided that the Sami people shall have a status as an aboriginal people and certain land rights.
According to some archaeologists there are indications that the Samis actually were the first inhabitants in Jämtland, Härjedalen and also in some regions even further south. But this is stll debated. Unfortunately archaeology and history has been dragged into a political battle about land rights and similar questions.
 
Well, Swedes actually has more rights than immigrants (at least those who are not Swedish citizens).
 
It´s interesting to notice that the debate of the rights of the Samis in many respects mimics the debate concerning other aboriginal peoples in other countries, It seems that there always are people among the dominating societies that dislike that the aboriginals shall have some special right to their own land.
 
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 11:56
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

  The theft of land and right was commited by the State, not the Swedes in general, and affected aboriginal Scandinavians as much as aboriginal Samis. There is no logical way to argue that Samis should have more fishing or hunting rights than natives of other ethnicities. 

Eventhough the state were mostly opressive against the Samis it still sometimes had to proclaim rules that protected Sami country from enchroaching Swedes who wanted to hunt, fish and take up settlements on Sami land.
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 12:04
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Well, most of the Swedish people has already democratically descided that the Sami people shall have a status as an aboriginal people and certain land rights.
Certainly not. The government decided. It certainly does not have democratic support in the concerned areas.
Quote
According to some archaeologists there are indications that the Samis actually were the first inhabitants in Jämtland, Härjedalen and also in some regions even further south. But this is stll debated. Unfortunately archaeology and history has been dragged into a political battle about land rights and similar questions.
Exactly, it's still debated. And no matter who was first; both the settled and nomad populations have lived there thousands of years before the Swedes conquered the territory.
 
Quote
Well, Swedes actually has more rights than immigrants (at least those who are not Swedish citizens).
I was of course talking about the immigrated citizens. 
 
Quote
It´s interesting to notice that the debate of the rights of the Samis in many respects mimics the debate concerning other aboriginal peoples in other countries, It seems that there always are people among the dominating societies that dislike that the aboriginals shall have some special right to their own land.
 
Then you haven't read what I said. I never said aboriginals shouldn't have rights, I raised the point that the ethnic Swedes or Norwegian are also aboriginals and they don't have any special rights.
The modern democratic state of Sweden is not the same, albeit in name, as the militaristic authoritarian Swedish kingdom. Either all citizens should have the same rights; or, if there should be compensation for the thefts of the kingdom, then all concerned should be compensated. Giving compensation to some only serves to piss the rest off and make them dislike the Samis (which is of course unfair - they should dislike the state).


Edited by Styrbiorn - 12 Jul 2009 at 12:16
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 12:14
A very complicated issue. Who is aboriginal and who isn't.
 
For Instance, the difference between a Maori in New Zealand and the European settler, besides race and culture, is that Maories arrived to the island only one thousand years BEFORE the Europeans...
The Inuits of Alaska, Canada and Greenland, are aborigins there only since 2.000 years ago!
The Ainus of Japan are the oldest people in the Island, but the average Japanese arrive there several thousand years ago as well!
In Africa, people like the Khoisan (Bushmen) are considered aborigins because they have a hunting gathering lifestyle, in comparison to the Bantu population, that invaded theirs territories in more recent times.
Basques in Spain seems to be a lot more related to the original Iberians than the rest of Spaniards! Just don't tell them so...
 
Perhaps what we are looking for is where there is tribal societies in our countries; which is a different matter.
 
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 12:27
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Certainly not. The government decided. It certainly does not have democratic support in the concerned areas.  
 
Well, it has support among the Samis and also by some Swedish. And since the Swedish part of Sapmi belongs to the state of Sweden the majority of Swedes can descide also in those areas. And it seems that most of the Swedish people think that the aboriginal people of the those areas shall have some special cultural rights as a compensation for things that they lost and for bad treatment.
 
 
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Exactly, it's still debated. And no matter who was first; both the settled and nomad populations have lived there thousands of years before the Swedes conquered the territory.
 
 
Well, it is not as if the Swedes in Jämtland and Härjedalen does not have any rights to any land at all. They actually own land, farms, houses, forest and so on.
 
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Then you haven't read what I said. I never said aboriginals shouldn't have rights, I raised the point that the ethnic Swedes or Norwegian are also aboriginals and they don't have any special rights.
The modern democratic state of Sweden is not the same, albeit in name, as the militaristic authoritarian Swedish kingdom. Either all citizens should have the same rights; or, if there should be compensation for the thefts of the kingdom, then all concerned should be compensated. Giving compensation to some only serves to piss the rest off and make them dislike the Samis (which is of course unfair - they should dislike the state).
 
As I stated, Swedes in those areas also own land and have rights. But much will always have more.
 
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 12:30
So Samis aren't Swedes?
By the way, Swedes were a tribal society, too, up to the Middle Ages, when they were Christianized.
I wonder how many old Norse believes and traditions are carried still by the Samis, if any.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 12:32
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

A very complicated issue. Who is aboriginal and who isn't. 
 
Yes indeed and a issue that many times provoke strong feelings and hot debates in those countries that have aboriginal populations.
 
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Perhaps what we are looking for is where there is tribal societies in our countries; which is a different matter.  
 
Well, that can also be hard to define. For example it is hard to call the Samis of today a tribal society since they in many ways live like other Swedes with the same technology, level of education and so on. And they are not organized in tribes.
Maybe one can call them an aboriginal minority.


Edited by Carcharodon - 12 Jul 2009 at 12:33
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 12:34
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 
Well, it has support among the Samis and also by some Swedish. And since the Swedish part of Sapmi belongs to the state of Sweden the majority of Swedes can descide also in those areas. And it seems that most of the Swedish people think that the aboriginal people of the those areas shall have some special cultural rights as a compensation for things that they lost and for bad treatment.
Colonization in other words. There's a reason Stockholm is disliked in the North, among the Sami as well as among the Swedes.
 
 
 
Quote
Well, it is not as if the Swedes in Jämtland and Härjedalen does not have any rights to any land at all. They actually own land, farms, houses, forest and so on.
 
So does the Sami. Why should they have even more rights then?
Quote
 
As I stated, Swedes in those areas also own land and have rights. But much will always have more.
 

The Sami are the ones with MORE rights, even though the 100,000-or-so Jamtlanders were conquered by Swedes. There simply aren't any arguments that native Sami should have more rights than native Jamtlanders, especially since they in all probability descend from the same population of which one part settled to become farmers.

-


Quote So Samis aren't Swedes?

Well, they are Swedish citizens. In this thread "Swede" have been used exclusively in the ethnic sense of the word.



Edited by Styrbiorn - 12 Jul 2009 at 12:36
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 12:42
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

  So Samis aren't Swedes?
 
If one ask many of them, they actually define themselves as Samis even if they at the same time are citizens of Sweden (or Norway, finland or Russia). It is the same with many immigrants who are Swedish citizens, they still define themselves as belonging to another ethnic group, at least in certain contexts. The same is the matter with the Roms (or gypsies).
 
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

By the way, Swedes were a tribal society, too, up to the Middle Ages, when they were Christianized.
I wonder how many old Norse believes and traditions are carried still by the Samis, if any.
 
Well that is a matter of discussion, some people considered at least some of them already were members of a, or a couple of, state organized societies. The debate about this is very vivid among historians and archaeologists.
 
According to Sami people who are into their old religion it was never the same as the old Norse religion.
 
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 12:52
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Colonization in other words. There's a reason Stockholm is disliked in the North, among the Sami as well as among the Swedes.
 
Well, what is the alternative? That Samis get a country of their own and ethnic Swedes another? Because many times the feelings between the Swedes of the north and the Samis are not so friendly so it would maybe be dangerous to let them have an independant state where both peoples would be governing at the same time Smile 
 
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

 
The Sami are the ones with MORE rights, even though the 100,000-or-so Jamtlanders were conquered by Swedes. There simply aren't any arguments that native Sami should have more rights than native Jamtlanders, especially since they in all probability descend from the same population of which one part settled to become farmers.

Most archaeological evidence seems to point to the fact that the settled peoples came there, they share the same cultural traits with other more southern societies and seems to have been a group  distinct from the nomads.
 
And who has the most rights and advantages can always be discussed.

Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 12:52
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

According to Sami people who are into their old religion it was never the same as the old Norse religion.
 

It probably wasn't. Although not much is known about the Old Norse religion*, it does look like a mix of a Indo-European pantheon and some Celtic and Sami/Finnic mythology. I never heard that the Sami adopted any Norse beliefs, though it's not entirely improbable. However, the sources on Sami religion are quite young and most survived by oral traditions. 

*the new age crap, "Asatro" (which incidently just means Old Gods/Asir Belief), is mostly modern and  made-up.  

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 12:56
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

...Well, that can also be hard to define. For example it is hard to call the Samis of today a tribal society since they in many ways live like other Swedes with the same technology, level of education and so on. And they are not organized in tribes.
Maybe one can call them an aboriginal minority.
 
So, do you believe that natives elsewhere still hunter and gather?
See this video, please, from Natives of Bolivian playing Barroque music Confused...
 
 
At least in Latin America, the only people that are considered Natives are those that keep theirs ancient tribal lifestyles. For example, Mapuche people today dress and look the same as the rest:
 


Edited by pinguin - 12 Jul 2009 at 12:58
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 13:02
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
So, do you believe that natives elsewhere still hunter and gather?
 
No, I do not think so and I never said so. 
 
 
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

At least in Latin America, the only people that are considered Natives are those that keep theirs ancient tribal lifestyles
 
Well, definitions about who is native (indigenous, aboriginal) seems to vary to some degree in different places. That is also why the Un had such dificulties in defining the concept when proposing the declaration about aboriginal peoples. Many countries just did not agree with some definition or to some of the other writings in that declaration.


Edited by Carcharodon - 12 Jul 2009 at 18:21
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 18:05
I see that my call for "defining terms" (pace Voltaire) has had the desired effect. Today, in the frenzy for political correctness and other such Newspeak balderdash we have made mush of the language. If you capitalize the noun, you are speaking of and only of the indigenous inhabitants of Australia! Considering that the term itself is Renaissance Latin (first known usage 1533), referencing the original inhabitants of a country [i.e. from the beginning], then one ventures into a veritable maelstrom of nonsense. The Sami are an ethnic group, certainly, but as an aboriginal population they become more than problematic. Are the Magyars the aboriginal population of the Danubian plain?
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 18:31
Well, the definitions is tricky. Definitions vary somewhat. In Sweden the Sami are classified as an "ursprungsbefolkning" which translates to aboriginal or indigenous. The word "ursprung" means origin so the Sami is a people of origin, it means it originates in the area where it lives (which is not really true since this people actually came here sometime during the stone age).
 
The debate of who were the first in some parts of Sweden where Samis, Swedes and Finns have lived together for a long time is rather intense. The "who was first" question are connected with a lot of other issues as land rights and similar.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 20:11
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

According to Sami people who are into their old religion it was never the same as the old Norse religion.
It probably wasn't.
The articel that I read in Archaeology magazine stated that the Sami did not follow the local variant of the European pantheistic religious sytem. Insead, the Sami were Shamanistic with animal totems (especially the bear). The article also mentioned that it is difficut to tell how long the shamanism lasted after Christian contact as it can be hard to tell from excavations which animal totem sites are truly religious in nature and which ones were from fully Christian Sami who retained some earlier practices for cultural but not religious reasons. 


Edited by Cryptic - 12 Jul 2009 at 20:14
Back to Top
Emperor Barbarossa View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
r�gh

Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2898
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Emperor Barbarossa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 04:23
In my local area (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), we had many Iroquois in the area before the English and Scots-Irish settled the area.
Pittsburgh, City of Champions
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 04:39
Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Emperor Barbarossa wrote:

In my local area (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), we had many Iroquois in the area before the English and Scots-Irish settled the area.
 
Ah, but were the Iroquois the aboriginal inhabitants of the Upper Ohio Valley? Hint: They were not...
unless one is willing to totally ignore just how arbitrary the term has become or set parameters vis a vis European contact at a specific time.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 09:34
Well, you cannot speak of aboriginals in Greece, since the people are a result of heavy tribe mixing. The only ones that seem to belong to an older group of people than the rest are the Sarakatsanoi. They live a nomadic life, marry mostly within the tribe and use versions of words that were popular in homers time and backwards.






FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 10:46

Fascinating houses the Sarakatsanoi have. Do some of them still live in houses like that?

Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 11:23
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Fascinating houses the Sarakatsanoi have. Do some of them still live in houses like that?



Those houses are mainly shelters or temporary ones they use when they move. So yes, they still live in such houses but sometimes they are not their main ones.
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 19>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.