Print Page | Close Window

Aboriginal peoples in your country

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: REGIONAL HISTORY
Forum Name: Modern Multi-Region
Forum Description:
Moderators: WH

URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=124262
Printed Date: 16 Jul 2018 at 11:32
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Aboriginal peoples in your country
Posted By: Carcharodon
Subject: Aboriginal peoples in your country
Date 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:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyA64m_p3PY - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyA64m_p3PY
 
 
Sami singer Sofia Jannok
 
 




Replies:
Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2009 at 03:10
Just how are you defining "aboriginal", Carch?

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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:
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/A/Aboriginal.aspx - http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/A/Aboriginal.aspx
 
Maybe one in this thread does not have to problematize the definition to much. I think most have some understanding what the term means.


Posted By: Jams
Date 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?


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date 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.



Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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:
 
 
Pic from: http://www.samer.se/GetDoc?meta_id=1139 - http://www.samer.se/GetDoc?meta_id=1139
 
 


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date 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).


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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.


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date 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?



Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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.
 


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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.


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date 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).


Posted By: pinguin
Date 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.
 


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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.
 


Posted By: pinguin
Date 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.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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.


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date 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.



Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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.
 


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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.



Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date 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.  



Posted By: pinguin
Date 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...
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlPXbr5VxMw&feature=PlayList&p=2B2B219487353E8D&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=12 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlPXbr5VxMw&feature=PlayList&p=2B2B219487353E8D&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=12
 
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:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s_sGHp9Odo&feature=PlayList&p=DD8C607D420497E5&index=0 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s_sGHp9Odo&feature=PlayList&p=DD8C607D420497E5&index=0


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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. 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlPXbr5VxMw&feature=PlayList&p=2B2B219487353E8D&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=12 -  
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.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date 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


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date 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.


Posted By: Cryptic
Date 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. 


Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date 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


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date 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


Posted By: Flipper
Date 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
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 10:46

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



Posted By: Flipper
Date 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
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 11:34
Here's some interiors of a Sarakatsanoi house






They're mainly producing feta and other cheesetypes. A large part of a typical modern Greek breakfast is based on their cuisine. That is for example a cheese pie called tyropita.






-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 14:07
Mmmm, cheese pie, it sounds good. And feta is really good too. When I was in Greece I really enjoyed the food.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 14:49
"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."
 
And you should have not, Flipper, for the Sarakatsanoi (or Karakachani/Karatkasani) are in no way classifiable as "aborigines", nor even an ethnic minority (unless one is in Bulgaria). Needless to say, however, as with all things having to do with the Balkans excess fervor colors definition. Perhaps during the the course of the Middle Ages they became pastoral isolates but in terms of the historical record, notice does not surface until the 14th century. Further, the language spoken is not archaic Greek but more or less just simply a variant northern modern Greek dialect (as distinct from artificially imposed constructs recalling classical Greek).
 
In a lighter vein...ain't transhumant behavior a kick in the pants. Nevertheless, the Roumeliotes are fascinating.


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 16:09
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

And you should have not, Flipper, for the Sarakatsanoi (or Karakachani/Karatkasani) are in no way classifiable as "aborigines", nor even an ethnic minority (unless one is in Bulgaria). Needless to say, however, as with all things having to do with the Balkans excess fervor colors definition. Perhaps during the the course of the Middle Ages they became pastoral isolates but in terms of the historical record, notice does not surface until the 14th century. Further, the language spoken is not archaic Greek but more or less just simply a variant northern modern Greek dialect (as distinct from artificially imposed constructs recalling classical Greek).


Easy there drgonzaga.

1) From my first message i said "you cannot speak of aboriginals in Greece". So, i did not classify them as aborigines nor as an ethnic minority.

2) I said not that they speak archaic Greek but that they use some archaic versions of words.

3) The only reason i mentioned them is because some suspect they belong to an early group of inhabitants in their area. In their portals, they claim to be Ellopes, but that does not necessarely mean "aboriginal" nor is there a historic account that prooves they have historically related themselves to that tribe.


-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 16:45
Easy there, Flipper, since the "you should have not" was in reference to "entertaining" the lure set out in the thread. However, please keep in mind that even a simple reference to "archaic" with regard to vocabulary is more than confusing. In no way shape or form do the Sarakatsanoi speak or employ Archaic Greek and the most that can be said is the presence of vocabulary intersecting Byzantine Greek, which, interestingly enough, is a parallel with early written historical notice of their existence as a "group". Let's not even get into ancient Evvia...
 
As with the Sami, one can not really speak of "aboriginal" peoples of Europe and really make any sense beyond the realm of archaeology. "Original" inhabitants, say what? It makes as much sense to describe the "Hillbillies" of Appalachia's hollers as aborigenes as it does to classify the groups put forth here as such.

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 16:57
drgonzaga you've made your point. All good.

As for the second part of your message i will agree. What makes an aboriginal  "aboriginal" really? Just the fact that an aboriginal is the only remain of people we know, that lived there before some other newcomer. There was probably always someone there before that we have no clue about. The samis did migrate to these regions as well. They did not came out from the ground.


-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 17:16
In some cases it is more clear cut who is, or was, an aboriginal, as in the case of Tasmania where the natives seem to have lived isolated for millenia before the Europeans arrived.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 17:54
 
About Samis, here is a map of what is usually characterized as Sapmi, the land of the Samis:
 
 
 
Pic from: http://www.saami.info/introduktion/karta.gif - http://www.saami.info/introduktion/karta.gif
 
They even have a flag of their own:
 
 
 
Pic from: http://www.saami.info/introduktion/veta_mer.asp - http://www.saami.info/introduktion/veta_mer.asp
 


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 18:15
Really, Carch, you take the cake in pushing for the extraneous. If the site is to have any credibility in terms of historical study and integrity, forays such as this one are to be discouraged. It is in line with other favored agiprop topics you apparently favor. Let this stuff flourish as part of the Young Socialists agenda, but please respect what is meant by History. You want a thread on the problems and adaptations of transhumant ethnic groups, that's just fine but don't clutter Allempires with tenuous assertions formulated under poorly defined terminology.

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 18:33
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Really, Carch, you take the cake in pushing for the extraneous. If the site is to have any credibility in terms of historical study and integrity, forays such as this one are to be discouraged. It is in line with other favored agiprop topics you apparently favor. Let this stuff flourish as part of the Young Socialists agenda, but please respect what is meant by History. You want a thread on the problems and adaptations of transhumant ethnic groups, that's just fine but don't clutter Allempires with tenuous assertions formulated under poorly defined terminology.
 
It seems that you see agiprop, political motifs and conspiracys behind every bush. Aboriginal people are also a part of History and maybe it can be hard to define what is aboriginal or not but it is still of interest to learn something about these peoples. And it seems that  in the case of the Swedish Samis, Swedens government has recognized them as an aboriginal people. Also UN has forwarded a declaration of aboriginal peoples. So the concept are not only agiprop (your favourite word?) or political conspiracy (maybe of the leftist sort?).


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 19:15
Politicians do not define the validity of terminology within the context of historiography or proper usage, Carcharodon. And that is the problem...you are trying to play contemporary politics on the historical horizon. It is much the same with the delusions of the Chomskyites and their near unintelligible abuse of history for the sake of jargon. In historical writing no scholar worth his salt would discuss the Berber as an aboriginal people but would treat them within the context of their own identity and history. Present day politics within a national context is something else entirely. An aborigine exists solely in the eyes of the beholder and the term itself carries a derogative tone.

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 19:28
Well, one can always problematize everything in absurdum. As for the Samis they call themselves an indigenous or aboriginal people and they would certainly not use a derogative term about themselves. And the terms indigenous, aboriginal or native are used in many historiographical books and articles.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 20:31
By all means, let us all go native and get high on a certain indigenous plant so as to commune with our aboriginal instincts.

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 20:36
Confused


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 20:44
Well Carch the moral of this encounter is that our common humanity should give us pause before embarking upon language games that somehow endow some sort of uniqueness to our present quandaries.

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 21:00
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Well Carch the moral of this encounter is that our common humanity should give us pause before embarking upon language games that somehow endow some sort of uniqueness to our present quandaries.
 
Well I did not open this thread to play language games, I was just curious about what people can tell about indigenous peoples in their countries or their neighbourhood. Also I shared something about the Sami people here in Sweden.
 
You seem to be able to problematize everything and turn it into severe political issues.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 04:44
what do you mean by indigenous people?
 
Choose:
 
(1) First peoples. Certainly Native Americans, Maories and others meet that criteria; I don't know if Sami do.
 
(2) Nomadic people. In that case peoples like the Tuaregs, the Gypsies meet the criteria as much as the natives of the Amazons and perhaps ancient Samis.
 
(3) Tribal people. In this case many groups worldwide meet that criteria, like the Berbers, the Khoisans, lots of native American groups and many people. Curiously, some Amerindians of the past weren't tribal peoples (Incans, Mayans, Aztecs, for instance).
 
(4) Minorities. Well, in that case you can include immigrants too.
 
 


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 07:54
I don't understand the point anymore.

-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 08:20
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 
And it seems that  in the case of the Swedish Samis, Swedens government has recognized them as an aboriginal people. Also UN has forwarded a declaration of aboriginal peoples. So the concept are not only agiprop (your favourite word?) or political conspiracy (maybe of the leftist sort?).

They have classified them as indigenous, but so what? They aren't anymore indigenous than the Scandinavians anyway. The choice is entirely political - or politically correct. Swaths of the so called Sapmi has only a tiny minority of Sami, whereas the others living there suddenly get to hear they have "stolen" the territory even though their families have lived there for thousands of years.



Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 10:07
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

They have classified them as indigenous, but so what? They aren't anymore indigenous than the Scandinavians anyway. The choice is entirely political - or politically correct. Swaths of the so called Sapmi has only a tiny minority of Sami, whereas the others living there suddenly get to hear they have "stolen" the territory even though their families have lived there for thousands of years.
 
As i mentioned one can always problemitize everything. At least the Samis are indigenous in some parts of Sapmi. Then one can also see, both in Sweden, and in many other countries that the term indigenous many times is dismissed and disliked for political reasons. If there is no people indigenous to a certain area then it is more easy for others to claim it.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 10:13
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

what do you mean by indigenous people?
 
Choose:
 
(1) First peoples. Certainly Native Americans, Maories and others meet that criteria; I don't know if Sami do.
 
(2) Nomadic people. In that case peoples like the Tuaregs, the Gypsies meet the criteria as much as the natives of the Amazons and perhaps ancient Samis.
 
(3) Tribal people. In this case many groups worldwide meet that criteria, like the Berbers, the Khoisans, lots of native American groups and many people. Curiously, some Amerindians of the past weren't tribal peoples (Incans, Mayans, Aztecs, for instance).
 
(4) Minorities. Well, in that case you can include immigrants too.
 
 
 
It is a combination of these four with emfasis on nr one. For example gypsies are not called indigenous because they immigrated relatively recently (at least to northern Europe).
 


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 10:14
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

I don't understand the point anymore.
 
Well, I start to wonder too, it seems that we are getting stuck in meaningless debates about definitions.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 13:32
As far as I know Nordics are indigenous to Northern Europe, so I don't see the point to call Samis the original people there. Besides, Nordics and Samis seems to be of the same stock with a different in height only. The difference in lifestyle is relatively recent, knowing that norse and other Germanic peoples were tribal up to a thousand years ago. For me it is like to argue who is more indigenous: a pigmey or a bantu


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 13:48
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

By all means, let us all go native and get high on a certain indigenous plant so as to commune with our aboriginal instincts.
 
Well, maybe there is some point to that remark. Todays entertainment industry has discovered, or rediscovered, different native peoples around the world. So now they actually send out people to some of these groups just to go native. One such show is the MTV Exciled where young, rich and extremely spoiled girls (and some boy too) are exiled; it means they have to live with a tribal people for one week just to discover how other people can live and learn to cooperate for the benefit of a group instead of just thinking about themselves. So one girl went to the Masai in Kenya, one to the mountains of Bolivia, one to the Engbera of Panama, one to agroup in India and one to natives in the Amazon. One girl also visited Samis in Norway. And lo and behold: after just one week many of them saw the light and learned not to be so selfish. On top of that a couple of them also promised to fight for the survival and rights of the group they spent a week with.
 
Another series were from England where women in their middle ages also went out to different tribal peoples to find themselves. Most of them also claimed that they actually found themselves and their inner harmony by visiting these peoples.
 
A third series was about one man from England who also went to different tribes and tested different sensory enhancing substances (drugs), fought with sticks and did other more or less spectacular things that in some way enlightened him.
 
What one was missing in all these shows was the deeper thoughts, opinions, dreams, hopes and aspirations of people in these indigenous groups. In these shows they became only like some extras in the narrative about the westerner who comes to the wilderness to find himself.
 


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 13:55
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

As far as I know Nordics are indigenous to Northern Europe, so I don't see the point to call Samis the original people there. Besides, Nordics and Samis seems to be of the same stock with a different in height only. The difference in lifestyle is relatively recent, knowing that norse and other Germanic peoples were tribal up to a thousand years ago. For me it is like to argue who is more indigenous: a pigmey or a bantu
 
Well, the difference in lifestyle between nomadic, hunter gatherer Samis and agricultural peoples in Scandinavia goes at least 4000 years back in time, or even more. The reindeer herding life style of the Samis were developed maybe 1200 years ago or more (at least it is described in contemporary sources from that time). State organised society started among the Scandinavians for more than 1000 years ago.
 
But what is recent or not is of course always relative.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 14:18
Definitively, you are not talking about indigenous people here and overseas invaders, no matter how much you stretch the concept. You are just talking about rival tribes, which is another matter.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 14:29
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Definitively, you are not talking about indigenous people here and overseas invaders, no matter how much you stretch the concept. You are just talking about rival tribes, which is another matter.
 
Well, the rivalry is described in different ways, the Samis say they are an indigenous people whos native lands have been invaded by the Scandinavians (and Finns and Russians in respective countries). The conflict is also referred to as a conflict between an ethnic minority and storsamhaellet i e the society of the large majority (who is of another ethnic affinity).
 
Here is some Sami views from a site thtat states: "Our goal is to increase people's knowledge about the Sami as an indigenous people and about Sami affairs":
http://www.eng.samer.se/1048 - http://www.eng.samer.se/1048
 
Here is also some Sami version on history:
http://www.eng.samer.se/servlet/GetDoc?meta_id=1229 - http://www.eng.samer.se/servlet/GetDoc?meta_id=1229
http://www.eng.samer.se/servlet/GetDoc?meta_id=1218 - http://www.eng.samer.se/servlet/GetDoc?meta_id=1218
 
The question is also who it is who shall define what is an indigenous people or not, is it the members of the people in question themselves, or is it other people, or is it...?
 


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 14:40
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 (and Finns and Russians in respective countries).


That's utter crap of some politically/maliciously involved people! The "invaded by Finns" part... Aren't they both speaking an Uralic language? Can anyone prove that Finns came later than Saamis in some way? No. It's just easy to blame on the Finns because they differentiated themselves in terms of lifestyle.

I truly detaste victimization in the name of land, property, political ideology, ethnic conflicts etc.

PS: Just to avoid misunderstandings, my sharp language did not point to you Carcharodon.


-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 14:43
It is said that the Swedes in the 17th century learned to closely know indigenous peoples both in Northern Scandinavia and North America because of their colonial endevours. The Swedish historian Gunloeg Fur has written a dissertation about it: Cultural Confrontations on Two Fronts (1993), presented at the University of Oklahoma, which deals with Swedes contacts and conflicts with Lenape Indians in New Sweden and with Sami in Lapland.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 14:45
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:


PS: Just to avoid misunderstandings, my sharp language did not point to you Carcharodon.
 
Good to hear, since I did not invent the historical narratives about these conflicts.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 14:54
I don't understand why there is confusion about the definitions.
 
'Indigenous' is clear. It means living where you were born. In Luxembourg I'm not indigenous; when in Wessex I am indigenous. The difficult part in determining whether a people is indigenous is not with the definition of 'indigenous', but with the definition of 'people' and in particular with the concept of a people being 'born'.
 
'Aboriginal' is also clear. It means 'there from the beginning'.  If you take that to mean when the people began, the problem is as above. If you take it to mean when the country/region began, then basically there are no aboriginal peoples and certainly no aborigines now.
 
"First inhabitants" would be a clearer concept, and even determinable objectively in some parts of the world, though it won't be determinable everywhere. Mostly one can tell which of two peoples represents the earlier inhabitants, subject to the difficulty of defining a people.
 
Lifestyle, culture, economic and political structures have nothing to do with the definition. I agree that generally speaking political motives are involved in the contemporary usage of the terminology.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 22:09
Today more and more of the peoples who call themselves aboriginal or indigenous are coming together in meetings, conferences and also festivals. Here is the Riddu Riddu Internasjonal urfolksfestival (international aboriginal peoples festival) in Norway:
 
Welcome to the 18th Riddu Riddu Festival in Kaafjord, North Norway from Wednesday, July 15th to Sunday, July 19h, 2009. Riddu Riddu is an international indigenous festival featuring an extensive program with around 200 artists and 3,000 visitors representing different indigenous and other peoples from across the globe.

 
http://www.riddu.no/home.21023.en.html - http://www.riddu.no/home.21023.en.html
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
http://www.riddu.no/riddu-riu-2008-programmet-er-klart.4481131-97846.html">
 
http://www.riddu.no/billedbok-tundraens-folk.4480606-97846.html">
 


Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2009 at 23:35
I don't think the Sámi are more aboriginal, but I believe some of the issues exists because of some attempt to assimilate the Sámi in the past, whether by government or by a general population that may have looked down on them in the past (people who may be related to them, but who live like modern Northern Euros, and who therefore consider themselves Scandinavian.)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 03:48
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Today more and more of the peoples who call themselves aboriginal or indigenous are coming together in meetings, conferences and also festivals. Here is the Riddu Riddu Internasjonal urfolksfestival (international aboriginal peoples festival) in Norway:
 ...
 
Pretty absurd. Aboriginal peoples don't have much in common, except the tribal lifestyle.
A Mapuche (tribal) has a lot more in common with an Inca (Citizen of a state) than with a tuareg(tribal), a Polynesian (Tribal) or an Australian Aboriguen (Tribal)
 
The rest is just New Age Romanticism with music of Lorena McKenitt .. LOL
 


Posted By: Inah
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 07:44

Personally I do not know about the Swedish Saami, (did Saami arrive to Scandinavia through different routes ?)... nor whether Finns or Saami arrived to Finland first. Or whether they perhaps arrived simultaneously, since the Saami related mtDNA lines of my grandmothers-s-s-s, both V and U5b1 mutations are also still found in amongst "our" Volga-Ural region language relatives.

Considering too that Y-DNA Haplo N (signifying "Uralic") seems to be the most frequent haplogroup found among the Saami males, this may not be some more recent a mixture of my grandfathers-s-s-s with the now called "Saami".  In addition, there is the Uralic language similarity, which goes way back in time; - when ?

In my grandparents time in Karelia, there didn't seem to be division nor any discrimination between people of (now called) "Saami" ancestry and people of Finnish ancestry, they were all, just Karelians, and coming from that Finnish/"Saami" cultural mixture Karelian background, what I can tell is, that I have also learned to somewhat identify with the "indigenous" label, or rather have recognized it and not for any political reasons as such nor in (said) pretense, as though play-acting to be different in the face of "our common humanity".

Did read one Saami saying that: "Within our language is our culture".

But all this goes way beyond the mere vocalized words. Language is often based upon an unspoken, collective view of the world by it's speakers, i.e. upon an unspoken model of the world which gives a frame of reference in the background of awareness or attention; - reference which supports, interprets and gives meaning to all our experiences in life. (Quoting *Shor* a bit here ).

It would be totally absurd to say that the unspoken models of the world i.e. the worldviews of the traditional Australian Aboriginal Elders and White Australians are the same. Yet the mainstream society often imagines everybody as perceiving Reality in the same Western model manner and thus often also projects notions such as "our common humanity" when actually only speaking from this assumed sameness.

The mainstream Western cultural model, this sameness, - into which every indigenous person must assimilate into; - without mainstream members first having began to fathom the possibility of any other models even existing, let alone began to understand them and therefore began to recognize other models intrinsic value is the problem often.

As far as I have seen, there also is a cap between Saami and Swedish reality orientations.

To totally assimilate would mean death to Saami or any other indigenous cultures for that matter. In this instance, on one hand having the Uralic (language) world view of the world pole and the 3 worlds (see Saami Drum on this thread) ... human existence seen as only being a part of natural environment. These "nature culture" values, non-dualism ("Oneness with Nature", where "Man" does not reign supreme over Layers of Creation), the knowledge and the ways of interconnectedness (which were considered to be so evil)... All these and huge amount of more, are values indigenous people do not want to lose in the modern world which is hierarchical, where left hemispheric orientated linear thinking predominates and individual freedom and personal ego-incentives are central to existence.  Here is a clash of cultural values.

I don't know why history wouldn't come into the picture.  Saami have only slowly, relatively recently began to reclaim their right to their indigenous heritage. Some people are still carrying the shame put onto their parents and grandparents whose old ways worldviews and nature beliefs were considered as evil, inferior, criminal, - whatnot else, and well and truly woken up to the fact that they never were and are not !  Old ways, which some onlookers now even choose to mock as  "New Age". 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLq_3RecUjk - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLq_3RecUjk

It is as though indigenous peoples in the world today need to become bi-lingual in terms of learning to juggle between different models of Reality. Different unspoken models of reality, which the mainstream culture does not generally see, recognize nor can therefore acknowledge as equally valid and valuable perspectives of Reality.

Some so called indigenous worldviews I have not, but Australian Aboriginal (unspoken) worldviews I have found to be psycho-spiritually so similar to those of my Saami (related) grandmothers, hence I have felt great empathy also for Aboriginal peoples struggles in Australia to preserve their languages and the culture for future generations. How this is achieved having to juggle both Realities, sometimes brings successes, sometimes not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8zAh3irMYo - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8zAh3irMYo

Hope I made some sense to the reader into "indigeousness" (from my own personal perspective anyways).



Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 11:25

Yes, you made sence Inah.

 

I also heard that at least some Sami feel more connected, culturally and also spiritually with other reindeer herding peoples in the east than with their neighbours of Swedish, Norwegian or Russian culture and heritage. People in the east that are reindeer herders and share many cultural similarieties with Sami reindeer herders are Samojeds, Ostjaks, Evenki, Jukagirs, Nenets, Tjuktjians and Korjaks.

 

The Sami author Oivind Ravna and his Nennish wife Zoia Vylka has written a fine book about how some of these reindeer herders live and how they percieve their world:

 
http://www.riddu.no/billedbok-tundraens-folk.4480606-97846.html">
 Tundraens folk (the people of the Tundra)
 


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 11:35
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Pretty absurd. Aboriginal peoples don't have much in common, except the tribal lifestyle.
A Mapuche (tribal) has a lot more in common with an Inca (Citizen of a state) than with a tuareg(tribal), a Polynesian (Tribal) or an Australian Aboriguen (Tribal)
 
The rest is just New Age Romanticism with music of Lorena McKenitt .. LOL
 
 
Well, if they feel that they have things in common, one can not just dismiss their feelings as New Age Romanticism. That is rather arrogant.
Among other things many aboriginal/indigenous peoples have in common are problems with surrounding peoples who do not understand their cultures and ways of life.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 16:15
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Pretty absurd. Aboriginal peoples don't have much in common, except the tribal lifestyle.
A Mapuche (tribal) has a lot more in common with an Inca (Citizen of a state) than with a tuareg(tribal), a Polynesian (Tribal) or an Australian Aboriguen (Tribal)
 
The rest is just New Age Romanticism with music of Lorena McKenitt .. LOL
 
 
Well, if they feel that they have things in common, one can not just dismiss their feelings as New Age Romanticism. That is rather arrogant.
Among other things many aboriginal/indigenous peoples have in common are problems with surrounding peoples who do not understand their cultures and ways of life.
 
What a fantastic statement: Problems with surrounding peoples! It is almost akin to the anthropologists who wished to maintain the integrity of a "stone age culture" in order to have specimens for future study. Placing aside the Romantic fascinated with folklore and the peculiarities of the transhumant, the logic involved is more than specious. A recitation of the crimes by dastardly Swedes gets a bit boring after a while and one wonders why Finland and Norway do not come in for a bashing--or for that matter the Russians. Whatever guilt trip modern Swedes are willing to assume is really beside the point but I can bet that the modern polities in Scandanavia would all shout enough if cultural "separatism" is translated into political action. And there the rub because modernization makes mush of economic isolationism and all of this New Age Romanticism also declares war upon the integrity of individual decision by peoples so classified. You can see how far the fantasy may extend--egads the circumpolar "tribes"--by visiting this site:
 
http://boreale.konto.itv.se/samieng.htm - http://boreale.konto.itv.se/samieng.htm
 
Hmm, I wonder how far I would get with the Turkish government if I demand the return of certain assets in Istanbul because I carry a bit of the Paleologus gene pool!


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Inah
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 17:01

Carcharodon wrote:

"I also heard that at least some Sami feel more connected, culturally and also spiritually with other reindeer herding peoples in the east than with their neighbours of Swedish, Norwegian or Russian culture and heritage. People in the east that are reindeer herders and share many cultural similarieties with Sami reindeer herders are Samojeds, Ostjaks, Evenki, Jukagirs, Nenets, Tjuktjians and Korjaks."

I do not doubt this at all.

Besides, apart from the reindeer herding culture, shamanic worldviews, common concerns about the Arctic environmental changes; -Saami also are, (because of their dual Berber & Uralic origins ... though long ways back) connected to Nenets, Ob-Ugrians, Evenks, Yakuts, Yakighirs etc. etc. etc. as are Eastern Finns, and some Karelians also feel the same way as some Saami do; -exactly. You were spot on there Carcharodon. 

There has also been talk about:
http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0304703303/ref=sib_rdr_dp - http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0304703303/ref=sib_rdr_dp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralo-Siberian_languages - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralo-Siberian_languages
 
If this is proven to be true, same myths could certainly have been passed on with the old proposed proto Uralo-Siberian language. Myths like the Earth Diver creation stories, or the Totemic Ancestor stories f.e.x. about the Girl who married the Bear ... perhaps. Stories that may speak from way back shared Ancestral past, stories that gave us our world view and "reality orientation" and our belonging to the natural world .... stories that everyone loving their culture treasures. Stories that against many odds people have kept alive.

So why not co-operate, why not explore similarities, parallels, ancient connections and also celebrate the differences of many Arctic peoples cultures.

For the longest time Finns and Saami were supposed to be Mongolians, according to "surrounding peoples" science and when "we" disagreed, (no disrespect to Mongolians here though) "we" were supposed to be in denial of who we are due to said "low self-esteem".

Now that people are exploring ancient genetic and language connections to the east, all of a sudden this is  "fantasy".

Funny world ! 

But of course must be said that  many Saami, Finnish, Swedish and Norwegians are related to one another as well. So loyalties are there also to be acknowledged and juggled.

 

 



Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 17:27
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

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.


Then, technically, if you cannot call the Iroquois native, then how can you call the Sami, or any other people than Africans native to their lands? The Sami were not born in Scandinavia, they would have to have moved there at some point in history.


-------------
Pittsburgh, City of Champions


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 18:01

Africans native to theirs lands? How come? Bantues are invaders of the Pigmey and Khoisan territories. I bet the "Bantu go home" applies here.



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 18:05
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

  It is almost akin to the anthropologists who wished to maintain the integrity of a "stone age culture" in order to have specimens for future study.
 
ClapClapClapClapClapClap
 
Specimens!!! What an amazing and precise description of how New Age dreammers dehumanize natives.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 18:33
It is interesting to watch many couch contemporary social, political and economic problems in terms of "cultural" integrity and fidelity to "life styles", notwithstanding the marginalization such whimsy entails. Besides the comedy involved--for example some "scholars" go on and on about the barbarity of Catholicism while extolling the simple virtues of shamanism and how such should be respected--the attempts at pathos truly become pathetic. What is the difference between the agitation for "homelands" by particular quasi-cultural groups and the "Homeland Policy" of the late and unlamented South African Republic? Better to banish the vocabulary of the infamous 19th century and its remnants that so plagued the 20th in order to properly address our contemporary problems more tied to discrimination and economic inequality than any fetish for antiquated classifications and distinctions. An inescapable fact of the 21st century is its complex urbanization and the needs for effective sustainability in terms of ever growing numbers. We all know the "gods must be crazy" but the craziness of certain "intellectuals" trangresses deific hubris in attempts to grant legitimacy to near anarchic conceptualizations.

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 18:35
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Africans native to theirs lands? How come? Bantues are invaders of the Pigmey and Khoisan territories. I bet the "Bantu go home" applies here.



I'm saying that if we follow this line of logic that "those people weren't always there, they moved there", then the only possible "aboriginals" could be in present day Africa (since the ancestors of humans all moved from Africa at some point).


-------------
Pittsburgh, City of Champions


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 18:46
Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Emperor Barbarossa wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

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.


Then, technically, if you cannot call the Iroquois native, then how can you call the Sami, or any other people than Africans native to their lands? The Sami were not born in Scandinavia, they would have to have moved there at some point in history.
 
Show me a single Sami that was not born in Scandanavia! Or, to be more precise, as a citizen of any existing body politic. Further, show me how tending reindeer would suffice to sustain the necessary institutions such as educational, medical, pensions, and all of the other necessities of modern life save in some form that generates little more than dependency. In a way, proponents of certain hobgoblins are little more than contemporary Miss Grundys trying to find a way "to keep 'em down on the farm after seeing Paree"! Puting one's hand into the grab-bag of academic jargon and its pseudo-sciences--and yes even linguistics is a pseudo-science when it pontificates--neither addresses nor explains the problems of the present. To hell with "who was here first" and actually confront the here-and-now. To abuse the intellect by the formulation of all of these suppositions so as to obfuscate the very real problems of the present is an insult to our common humanity.


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 19:02
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

What a fantastic statement: Problems with surrounding peoples! It is almost akin to the anthropologists who wished to maintain the integrity of a "stone age culture" in order to have specimens for future study. Placing aside the Romantic fascinated with folklore and the peculiarities of the transhumant, the logic involved is more than specious. A recitation of the crimes by dastardly Swedes gets a bit boring after a while and one wonders why Finland and Norway do not come in for a bashing--or for that matter the Russians. Whatever guilt trip modern Swedes are willing to assume is really beside the point but I can bet that the modern polities in Scandanavia would all shout enough if cultural "separatism" is translated into political action. And there the rub because modernization makes mush of economic isolationism and all of this New Age Romanticism also declares war upon the integrity of individual decision by peoples so classified. 
 
 
 
Well it seems that you think one shall totally disregard indigenous peoples own standpoints and just run them over (figuratively speaking). Indigenous peoples like the Samis, and also the eastern reindeer peoples I mentioned above, have been involved in land struggles with not only Sweden but also Norway and Russia (in its different shapes). For example in parts of Russia they are forced to leave ancestral lands because of the extraction of oil on their territories.
But maybe you just think that the organisations of the Samis and several other indigenous peoples are just indulging themselves in some sort of New Age trip of their own.
 
And who said anything about Stone Age??? 
 
 


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 19:13
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 Show me a single Sami that was not born in Scandanavia! Or, to be more precise, as a citizen of any existing body politic.
 
I think the Emperor meant that the ancestors of the Samis one time came there from some other place.
 
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 Further, show me how tending reindeer would suffice to sustain the necessary institutions such as educational, medical, pensions, and all of the other necessities of modern life save in some form that generates little more than dependency.
 
Not all Samis of today are reindeer herders, just some of them is. But struggle for land rights and struggle against discrimination is a reality also for those.
 
One can as an example take some building of hydro electric dams on lands earlier belonging to Samis. Still these same Samis did not get any real compensation for their loss or the gain that the majority society had of the dam. In fact some of those who lived close to the dams never got any electricity themselves.


Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 19:17
You tried to make the claim that native Iroquois were not native, never explained why, and then give the Sami, an equally legitimate aboriginal people, native status. The Iroquois were native to New York, my mistake (memory from history I learned five years ago is a bit hazy), and attacked and assimilated the Monongahelas, a native tribe in the area. As for the I never said that the Sami were not aboriginal. As for the rest of your rant, I do not even know what you are talking about or trying to say. I am not abusing any sort of intellect or trying to be a pseudo-intellectual. You take a little mistake and start insulting me about some political issues I was not discussing nor attempting to delve into. I forgot that the Iroquois were technically not aborignial to Pennsylvania, but to New York, and from most of the history of Pennsylvania that I have studied (French and Indian War to today) I have always heard of the Iroquois presence in Western Pennsylvania. The town my dad is from, Monaca, is named after the Iroquois cheif Monacatootha (meaning "great arrow"), along with numerous other place names in Western Pennsylvania named after Iroquois people along with native tribes (such as the Susquehannocks). The town Are the Monongahelas, in your mind, an aboriginal people? If you can call the Sami an aboriginal people (which they are), then how can Native American tribes not be considered the same (given that they inhabited the area for thousands of years)?

-------------
Pittsburgh, City of Champions


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 20:25
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 
 
Well it seems that you think one shall totally disregard indigenous peoples own standpoints and just run them over (figuratively speaking). Indigenous peoples like the Samis, and also the eastern reindeer peoples I mentioned above, have been involved in land struggles with not only Sweden but also Norway and Russia (in its different shapes). For example in parts of Russia they are forced to leave ancestral lands because of the extraction of oil on their territories.
But maybe you just think that the organisations of the Samis and several other indigenous peoples are just indulging themselves in some sort of New Age trip of their own.
 
And who said anything about Stone Age??? 
 
 


And? Ethnic Russians were also forced to move from their ancestral lands.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 20:29
Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Emperor Barbarossa wrote:

You tried to make the claim that native Iroquois were not native, never explained why, and then give the Sami, an equally legitimate aboriginal people, native status. The Iroquois were native to New York, my mistake (memory from history I learned five years ago is a bit hazy), and attacked and assimilated the Monongahelas, a native tribe in the area. As for the I never said that the Sami were not aboriginal. As for the rest of your rant, I do not even know what you are talking about or trying to say. I am not abusing any sort of intellect or trying to be a pseudo-intellectual. You take a little mistake and start insulting me about some political issues I was not discussing nor attempting to delve into. I forgot that the Iroquois were technically not aborignial to Pennsylvania, but to New York, and from most of the history of Pennsylvania that I have studied (French and Indian War to today) I have always heard of the Iroquois presence in Western Pennsylvania. The town my dad is from, Monaca, is named after the Iroquois cheif Monacatootha (meaning "great arrow"), along with numerous other place names in Western Pennsylvania named after Iroquois people along with native tribes (such as the Susquehannocks). The town Are the Monongahelas, in your mind, an aboriginal people? If you can call the Sami an aboriginal people (which they are), then how can Native American tribes not be considered the same (given that they inhabited the area for thousands of years)?
 
Thank you for your clarification, as well as recognition that the Iroquois were not indigenous to the Upper Ohio Valley but were "the invaders" of the Algonquin homestead. My response was not meant as an insult, but as a warning with regard to going "happy" over questionable labels. I do not call anyone an "aboriginal people" and even studiously avoid the term "Indian"--unless speaking specifically of the territory governed from New Delhi. It is way past the time for all scholars to abandon the biased nomenclature of the past and the coloring it still carries. Even though I retain the convenient Americanism coined in the 1890s, Amerind, I much prefer dealing with specifics within history: their own names. By the way, the Iroqouis did not inhabit the Upper Ohio Valley for thousands of years but entered the area in historic times almost on a par with the French and English. See the problems one encounters when one persists with such conveniences. In fact, Iroqouis itself is a fiction (it's a language desciptive) since the Haudenosaunee entered into the Upper Ohio Valley as the Mingo, but one particular element in a larger entity. Similarly, they exercised hegemony beyond their actual nucleus in New York through violence over their Algonquin neighbors or absorption of linguistically related groups who had originally held "enemy" status such as the Huron or the Tionontati  between 1580 and 1680. At least they themselves do not enter into the victimization game, call themselves aboriginal inhabitants, or claim some fantastic numbers for their original populations. In fact there is an interesting on-line project on just this subject:
 
http://www.tolatsga.org/iro.html - http://www.tolatsga.org/iro.html
 
 


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 20:49
Carch wrote:
 
"One can as an example take some building of hydro electric dams on lands earlier belonging to Samis. Still these same Samis did not get any real compensation for their loss or the gain that the majority society had of the dam. In fact some of those who lived close to the dams never got any electricity themselves."
 
The rules of eminent domain can be a bitch and you need not claim your area was chosen for its "benefit" because you are a "minority". Governments perform such actions quite regularly...here in the US the government still retains titles to lands it seized for a pittance under the pretext of "national defense". Nor do we need to look far at the consequences of dam building... or any other "public" project for that matter. It would be nice if one could color the protest under the banner of ancestral lands, but that only goes so far even if you could dust off some ancient charter. These are contemporary problems which must be addressed in terms of the modern judicial systems now in place. rather than going off on tangents drawn from folklore and travel brochures.
 
Besides, Carch, Sweden is long past due for major penance just for unleashing ABBA upon the world!Evil Smile
 
 


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 20:55
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


And? Ethnic Russians were also forced to move from their ancestral lands.
 
Well, noone says that was right either.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 21:11
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

  
 By the way, the Iroqouis did not inhabit the Upper Ohio Valley for thousands of years but entered the area in historic times almost on a par with the French and English. See the problems one encounters when one persists with such conveniences. In fact, Iroqouis itself is a fiction (it's a language desciptive) since the Haudenosaunee entered into the Upper Ohio Valley as the Mingo, but one particular element in a larger entity. Similarly, they exercised hegemony beyond their actual nucleus in New York through violence over their Algonquin neighbors or absorption of linguistically related groups who had originally held "enemy" status such as the Huron or the Tionontati  between 1580 and 1680.  
 
At least the Iroqouis were native to North America which not the French and English were.
 
And the name Mingo is mostly used for the conglomerate of different Iroqouis speaking groups, with some surviving descendants of the Susquehannocks at its core, that fought in battles against the English (and the Iroqouis) in the 18th century.
 
 
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

  Besides, Carch, Sweden is long past due for major penance just for unleashing ABBA upon the world!Evil Smile 
 
If you seen the ballet "Abbalett" coreographed by Birgit Cullberg then you could actually start to like ABBAs music. Wink
 


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 21:47
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:



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.





I agree with this and the Teutonic tribes have been there for centuries so in my opinion that makes them also aboriginal. The Native Americans in North and South America are much better examples of a truly aboriginal people but even they are mixed today in many cases. I keep running into Native Americans who claim to be part Irish- boy those Irish really got around- LOL

I suppose it all depends on how one defines aboriginal. I came across a magazine about Aboriginal cultures at my college. It had an article about one of the tribes, in present day Turkiye, that are descendant of the ghazi who arrived in the 11th c. AD. If aboriginal means original people then what were they doing in this magazine? The Rum or Romans (Byzantines) are much closer to being aboriginal in that region but even the Greeks were invaders who intermixed like the Turks have in more recent history.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 21:59
If you seen the ballet "Abbalett" coreographed by Birgit Cullberg then you could actually start to like ABBAs music. Wink
 
Perish that thought! It was excruciating enough taking my grandniece, after constant importuning, to watch Meryl Streep embarrass herself beyond endurance in Mama Mia!. That fiasco could only be call entertainment after the consumption of a lid of weed!
 
As for the comment on the Iroquois then I suppose that you feel that it is alright to be plundered and pillaged as long as the perpetrator has some claim to "aboriginal" status?


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 22:10
Iroquois

Funny, I have Iroquois ancestry but that does not make me aboriginal since it goes so far back in our family line.


Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2009 at 00:34
Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:



I agree with this and the Teutonic tribes have been there for centuries so in my opinion that makes them also aboriginal. The Native Americans in North and South America are much better examples of a truly aboriginal people but even they are mixed today in many cases. I keep running into Native Americans who claim to be part Irish- boy those Irish really got around- LOL



Funny about that, since it seems that the Gaels like something about the Native Americans.LOL Many Native American chiefs were half-Scottish, including Osceola, Peter McQueen, John Ross, John Stuart, and the Nez Perce chief Duncan MacDonald. I'm guessing the feelings of disenfranchisement by the government united Scotsmen and Irishmen with Native Americans. Both were fierce warrior cultures as well.


-------------
Pittsburgh, City of Champions


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2009 at 02:48
Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Emperor Barbarossa wrote:

 ...Funny about that, since it seems that the Gaels like something about the Native Americans.LOL Many Native American chiefs were half-Scottish, including Osceola, Peter McQueen, John Ross, John Stuart, and the Nez Perce chief Duncan MacDonald. I'm guessing the feelings of disenfranchisement by the government united Scotsmen and Irishmen with Native Americans. Both were fierce warrior cultures as well.
 
Yes, and many more European Americans of today have Amerindian ancestry, no matter they have no idea.
 
 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2009 at 04:30
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

It is interesting to watch many couch contemporary social, political and economic problems in terms of "cultural" integrity and fidelity to "life styles", notwithstanding the marginalization such whimsy entails. Besides the comedy involved--for example some "scholars" go on and on about the barbarity of Catholicism while extolling the simple virtues of shamanism and how such should be respected--the attempts at pathos truly become pathetic.
.
 
Well, the idea of an universal shamanism comes from the New Age. The fact is that what is called shamanism is simply the religions of diverse people. There are not two shamanic practises who are identical.
 
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

What is the difference between the agitation for "homelands" by particular quasi-cultural groups and the "Homeland Policy" of the late and unlamented South African Republic?
.
 
Absolutely. Assimilation is the way to go. However, rather than the mainstream flattening the native minorities, what is required is that the mainstream is tought and learn about the roots of theirs own country! That's absolutely necesary.
For instance, I am in favor that in the Americas and the Pacific, kids should learn a native language. Why not? If it is the ancestral languages of theirs lands, after all.
 
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Better to banish the vocabulary of the infamous 19th century and its remnants that so plagued the 20th in order to properly address our contemporary problems more tied to discrimination and economic inequality than any fetish for antiquated classifications and distinctions. An inescapable fact of the 21st century is its complex urbanization and the needs for effective sustainability in terms of ever growing numbers. We all know the "gods must be crazy" but the craziness of certain "intellectuals" trangresses deific hubris in attempts to grant legitimacy to near anarchic conceptualizations.
 
It is absolutely necesary to educate and put natives into the 21th century. They will need computers, GPS and lawyers to deffend theirs rights, and theirs kids should enter to college like every citizen of the countries they live.
 
If they want to be tourist guides, be it by personal decisions, but shouldn't be enforced to be just living peaces of a human museum Confused
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2009 at 08:29
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

If you seen the ballet "Abbalett" coreographed by Birgit Cullberg then you could actually start to like ABBAs music. Wink
 
Perish that thought! It was excruciating enough taking my grandniece, after constant importuning, to watch Meryl Streep embarrass herself beyond endurance in Mama Mia!. That fiasco could only be call entertainment after the consumption of a lid of weed!
 
Well, Abbalett were of a lot higher quality than that American mishmash.
 
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

As for the comment on the Iroquois then I suppose that you feel that it is alright to be plundered and pillaged as long as the perpetrator has some claim to "aboriginal" status?
 
I don not recall that I have discussed about the pillaging and plundering done by the Irouois. But of course those who were plundered did not appreciate it, whoever did it.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2009 at 08:40
Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Emperor Barbarossa wrote:


Funny about that, since it seems that the Gaels like something about the Native Americans.LOL Many Native American chiefs were half-Scottish, including Osceola, Peter McQueen, John Ross, John Stuart, and the Nez Perce chief Duncan MacDonald. I'm guessing the feelings of disenfranchisement by the government united Scotsmen and Irishmen with Native Americans. Both were fierce warrior cultures as well.
 
It is somewhat like the Finns (and also some Swedes) in New Sweden, some of them felt badly treated in the Swedish colony, especially under the ruling of the governor Johan Printz, so they sought refuge among the native Americans where some of them married. Johan Printz complains over this in his letters to Sweden. And the priests in the colony also disliked this escape to what they saw as heathen and wild cultures.
Especially some of the Finns saw similarities in the native ways of life to their own. There were some likeness in the agricultural methods, hunting and fishing were also important for the Finns, and they even had the use of the Sauna in common with the Amerind.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2009 at 08:46
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
Well, the idea of an universal shamanism comes from the New Age. The fact is that what is called shamanism is simply the religions of diverse people. There are not two shamanic practises who are identical. 
It is absolutely necesary to educate and put natives into the 21th century. They will need computers, GPS and lawyers to deffend theirs rights, and theirs kids should enter to college like every citizen of the countries they live.
 
If they want to be tourist guides, be it by personal decisions, but shouldn't be enforced to be just living peaces of a human museum Confused 
 
Can agree that everyone must live in the 21th century. But the most important is that the aboriginal peoples themselves are allowed to choose how they want to live and that they are entitled to their lands which are in many places around the world severely infringed on, invaded and stolen.
 
Education is of course also of uttermost importance. And there are efforts in many places by the aboriginal peoples themselves to increase the level of it. Some aboriginal people have bad experiences of the educational system in some countries where the aboriginal kids has been thaught by others that their own cultures were primitive and bad. They have in some places also been forbidden to talk their own language. In such cases the education has been nothing else than negative indoctrination to make the aboriginal children abandon their own culture and heritage.
 
So one can understand that many representatives from different native peoples think it is important that the natives themselves shall have some control over the education and of what the children will learn in school.
 


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2009 at 11:07
I happily join in calling for the abandonment of the 'biassed nomenclature of the past'. It's only merely a step in the direction of abandoning past biassed attitudes to other people  though, and changing names won't change reality.
 
The abuse and misuse everywhere including in this thread of the terms 'aboriginal' and 'indigenous' and the confusion that arises seems to be merely the result of trying to find alternative euphemisms for attributes that once would have been called 'primitive' or 'underdeveloped': terms that have become fashionably reprehensible.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2009 at 12:17
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I happily join in calling for the abandonment of the 'biassed nomenclature of the past'. It's only merely a step in the direction of abandoning past biassed attitudes to other people  though, and changing names won't change reality.
 
The abuse and misuse everywhere including in this thread of the terms 'aboriginal' and 'indigenous' and the confusion that arises seems to be merely the result of trying to find alternative euphemisms for attributes that once would have been called 'primitive' or 'underdeveloped': terms that have become fashionably reprehensible.
 
Well, nomenclature is always difficult. What do you think of some peoples calling themselves aboriginal/indigenous/native/first nations and similar?


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2009 at 13:23

The nomenclature has change, indeed. Nobody should use the term "savage" for people that simply had a simpler technology.

In the Americas, at least, the terms are clear.
 
Indigenous= Descendents of the pre-contact peoples of the Americas, who keep theirs ancestral culture, traditions and language.
 
First People, Original People=Indigenous
 
Amerindian=Anthropological term that groups the first peoples and cultures of the Americas.
 
Native=Person born in a given country, who descend from locals born there since many generations ago. Not necesarily Indigenous.
 
Tribal people=Societies of small number of members. Not all Indigenous people are tribal. Not all Europeans are non-tribal either; think in the Scotish clans, in the Gypsies, Samis, and even in the Sicilians clans.
 
Civilized= A citizen of a civilization.
 
Civilization = A culture based in and ruled from by cities.
 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2009 at 13:29
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

...Education is of course also of uttermost importance. And there are efforts in many places by the aboriginal peoples themselves to increase the level of it. Some aboriginal people have bad experiences of the educational system in some countries where the aboriginal kids has been thaught by others that their own cultures were primitive and bad. They have in some places also been forbidden to talk their own language. In such cases the education has been nothing else than negative indoctrination to make the aboriginal children abandon their own culture and heritage.
 
So one can understand that many representatives from different native peoples think it is important that the natives themselves shall have some control over the education and of what the children will learn in school. 
 
Not only that. Native culture should be tought not only to natives but also to the rest of the people of a giving country. Mainstreams and natives should share the same cultures; both locals and introduced. That's the only way to preserve the ancient culture while at the same time allowing "mainstreamers" to love what its also theirs heritage. People only hate what don't know.
 
In South America, for instance, most people is very proud of the Ancient Inca empire. What is needed is that that pride extend to the rest of natives. That they also be proud of theirs lesser developed native cultures. Without forgetting theirs other heritages, either.
 
That's even convinient for natives themselves. Cultural tourism to communities, teaching of languages, foods, medicine and culture to "mainstreamers" are activities that get together both groups together, as it should be.
 
 


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2009 at 13:34
Well, the situation is much clearer in the Americas, at least if you treat the continent(s) as a whole and the inhabitants at a given period as a whole. When you start looking at individual tribes and smaller patches of territory though it gets as complex as it is in the 'Old World'.
 
As I said though the really difficult bit is how you define and demarcate 'a people'.
 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2009 at 13:57
That's almost impossible. Admixture prevents to demark them. And admixture goes both ways.
National states in the Americas have a special status for Indigenous people. But to be Indigenous mean they belong to an ancestral tribe.
 
For me at least, what is important is to respect the rights of the communities that exist, particularly to own and preserve theirs lands and culture, and to receive help to develop new enterprises.
 
However, these days the large majority of natives have moved to the cities, where they don't have the right to land, hardly can speak a language, and got isolated from the ancient roots. For them it is necesary to improve the social networks to preserve the identity, but also to teach it to the rest of the citizens of the same country.
 
In the country were I live, at least, the degree of discrimination have got down very fast in the last decades, and more people is interested in knowing more about the original peoples.
 


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2009 at 16:26
I agree about the difficulty, and I agree with the tenor of the post.
 
But it could be just as well expressed without even using the words 'aboriginal' and 'indigenous'. 'Minorities' is a good enough word for the underlying concept.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2009 at 16:36
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I agree about the difficulty, and I agree with the tenor of the post.
 
But it could be just as well expressed without even using the words 'aboriginal' and 'indigenous'. 'Minorities' is a good enough word for the underlying concept.
 
Absolutely NOT!!
 
A minority could be just a bunch of refugees that arrived recently to a giving country.
 
You can't classify these latecommers together with the people that arrived the first. The First People are the HISTORY and cultural heritage of a country. Native people have the carriers of important parts of the National Identity. Foreigners come and go and bring allien cultures.
 
 



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net