re: First Indigenous SI Model

They're not indigenous, they migrated across the Bering land bridge from Asia.

quote:

---

Okay, but this implies that there were prior people, and thus there are indigenous groups. Where you choose to make a distinction is a politically informed decision, but all of human civilization is designed around those decisions. The exception some morons seem to want is with this one word, regardless of what other inconsistencies arise from that position.

---

Well, what makes anyone born here not an “indigenous” individual?

How many generations until a population becomes indigenous?

quote:

---

3.5

---

Scruffy gets to claim indigenous status!

Hell yea!

Frankly, I think she has some white in her.

None of her features other than skin says indian.

I love me some exotic look and she checks that box. What a gorgeous woman.

And frick you miserable pricks who can't even enjoy a good babe thread on a Sunday.

quote:

---

Well, what makes anyone born here not an “indigenous” individual?

---

Ask the morons who are insisting that there is no such thing as 'indigenous.'

quote:

---

How many generations until a population becomes indigenous?

---

Again, a political question that is difficult to answer, but I will try. According to the genomic research, all ancient individuals in the Americas, save for the later-arriving Arctic groups, are more closely related to contemporary indigenous peoples in the Americas than they are to other people. In other words, the claim that there was some other group of people that was displaced is weaker than people here seem to think, and is extremely weak according to the evidence we have on hand. Migration to the Americas likely followed dispersal patterns that we find literally every where else, which was nodal, with smaller groups of populations breaking off continually and continually, rather than a series of displacements. That's not to say that the first groups of people here weren't violent or something, but rather that they were as resource-defined as every other group in human history and had the same litany of options that other dispersal groups did, which included fighting, mating, migrating, etc.

This idea keeps coming up that the first peoples of the Americas definitively displaced some other unknown group, but there's scant evidence for that. Indigenous, from the Latin, was the term used by the Europeans to describe these people they encountered. In anthropological sense, when referring to people, it usually refers to people who occupied an area before 'other people' came to live there (which is how the Oxford dictionary defines it). In the historical sense, or rather, for the purposes of several disciplines, indigenous means before colonization efforts from any group of people. In that sense, the term is relative, and in those disciplines, European peoples might become indigenous relative to some other newcomer, but they still won't be referred as such in the historical literature or among the several disciplines where this word retains meaning and import. If not for the specific history of the word, it might as well mean the group of people who colonized a region before some other group of people moved in, but when we are speaking of certain disciplines which require historical rigor, they will likely never be called 'indigenous' with respect to the time periods of question.

I mean, on its face, it would be ridiculous to call Aboriginal people in Australia as anything other than indigenous, as they retained cultural characteristics for 65,000 years before European contact Likewise, calling the Ainu an indigenous people of Japan is just a reference to a fact that they were the earliest people we know that settled Japan. Same for the Formosan people of Taiwan. It seems insane that people seem to take offense to this particular term for some reason.

I'd poke her hontas

quote:

---

Not sure how to say side boob in Cree.

---

Titicaca.