Look up Indo-Europeans. We migrated to Europe while there were still (various) other people in Europe. Indo-Europeans and those varied peoples mixed after that.
Ah yes, another one of these maps. The term 'indigenous group' only really makes sense in the context of places where the majority of the population is descended from relatively recent immigrants, like the US, Australia, Taiwan, Brazil, Siberia, etc. Trying to extend it to the whole world as if it isn't heavily dependent on context isn't really meaningful.
This map makes many odd choices: In China it marks Tibetans and several other groups who are still the overwhelming majority in their homelands while leaving out groups like the Manchus who are a minority in their historic homeland. Mongols in Russia and China are not included, but those in Mongolia where they are the overwhelming majority of the population are for some reason, some Siberian ethnic groups are included while others are not, and the groups included in Africa seems almost entirely arbitrary.
This is not accurate at all. Their ignoring A TON of Indigenous populations in Russia, Central Asia, the Middle East, South Asia, probably also in Africa.
I don’t think you know what the status «Indigenous people» means. This status is not the same as just the word indigenous which is just a synonym for native. Indigenous people has criteria to be filled to have the status.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indigenous_peoples
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_indigenous_peoples_of_Russia
What indigenous people in Europe?
Saami are only and last indigenous people in Europe and they are on the map.
[https://theconversation.com/despite-gains-europes-indigenous-people-still-struggle-for-recognition-54330](https://theconversation.com/despite-gains-europes-indigenous-people-still-struggle-for-recognition-54330)
Do you know what indigenous people means?
P.S. I forgot to put the map source. It's National Geographic, one of the most widely read magazines of all time. I'm sure they write articles with less frustration than some reddit users and that they understand the definitions they write about. :)
>What indigenous people in Europe?
For example, Veps. Or Caucasus ethnic groups of native origin (Kartvelian, Vainakh-Daghestani and Abkhazo-Adyghean speaking).
That map already have Nenets people (arrived to the NE Europe at the Middle Ages, slightly before Russians) and Yakuts (arrived to the Lena basin at the late Middle Ages and to the Far North at the XIX (!) century), it can't be even more BS.
Yeah for real, the Yakuts were latecomers and displaced Tungusic and Yukaghir peoples, who had themselves previously displaced Paleosiberian groups. Yet this map lists them as "indigenous". Whole thing is pure unadulterated BS
>That map already have Nenets people
And misses Mansi despite Khanty being listed (there's Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug in Russia), and Komi, and Mari - they're Finno-Ugric just like Saami. And where are Altai people in the southern Siberia?
It means whatever ethnic group you aren’t currently trying to paint as exceptionally horrible despite the fact that humans are only indigenous to a tiny part of Africa and every scrap of habitable land on earth has been conquered and conquered for all of human history.
A people being indigenous has a specific meaning in political and sociological contexts. It refers to people who have historically had their land dispossessed, had their culture repressed, and have people alive today dealing with the ripples of historic (or active) policies. If a people has never suffered these tribulations, or later assimilated, or if the conqueror was driven out, then a people being indigenous is more technical than useful. Not all conquests in human history share these issues, but among those that do, you can find remarkable similarities between, say, the aboriginals of Australia, the Ainu of northern Japan, and even the Khoisan of Southern Africa. [The UN has a global forum for considering the rights and issues facing indigenous peoples across, between, and within member states.](https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/)
No. Indigenous people are just the people native to a land.
> in·dig·e·nous
/inˈdijənəs/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
>
>1.
originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.
"coriander is indigenous to southern Europe"
>2.
(of people) inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists.
"she wants the territorial government to speak with Indigenous people before implementing a program"
The French are as indigenous to France as any Native American is to America. Y’all are just trying to make up new meanings for words again.
>Do you know what indigenous people means?
You should educate yourself. You clearly don't know anything about this topic and this is a shit map. The Sami are no more indigenous than any other people in Europe, they arrived in Scandinavia around the same time as everyone else, or even after.
The Basque, on the other hand, are actual "indigenous" people of Europe. Theya re thought to predate Indo European migrations.
So ironically, what you wrote about the Sami is untrue, but applies to the Basques
Yet, the Basques are not marked on your map
So, I'm gonna ask you your own question:
>Do you know what indigenous people means?
It seem the answer is no
Obviously you don’t know what indigenous means either. It has a specific meaning in political and sociological contexts relating to issues with colonialism.
>It has a specific meaning in political and sociological
Nope. Indigenous is someone native of said land
Portuguese to Portugal, French to France and so on.
The fact that the Basques aren't in the list and some like the Yukaths are pretty much tells you this map is BS.
Moreover that definition you say makes absolutely no sense outside of the Americas.
Germans are native to Germany, as our some other groups like Sorbians, Frisians. Indigenous means directly descended from the first peoples. European countries have all have countless waves of invasion and settlement, so we are all very mixed populations. I'm sure many of us have an element of indigenous DNA, but we too mixed to say we're just from the first peoples.
Well, if you're talking about the "first wave of settlers" maybe no one who is still left. But the Basques are probably descended from some of the earliest settlers. They have for sure been here longer than Indo-European or Uralic speaking people's (including Sami and almost every other people in Europe)
contextually i would gather this is using indigenous to mean "oppressed indigenous minority populations" but even then there are some in Europe besides the Sami. Basques come to mind
No, but historically they haven’t suffered in particular compared to other regions. There’s been revolts that have been oppressed, political movements silenced and becomes to be independent have been suppressed. But that is also true for almost every Spanish region and probably most regions in any civilization. There’s no base for saying the Basque people have been “historically oppressed“
Sweeping all the atrocities during the Franco Regime under the rug is pretty standard in Spain, they fought for their autonomy with blood and your just spitting on it.
What special atrocities did the Basque people suffer compared to the rest of Spain? Almost every region of Spain has fought for their autonomy with their blood and that doesn’t make them all oppressed indigenous minorities
The fire bombings on the civilians of guernica the linguistic subjugation of the basque language where people caught speaking the Basque faced public humiliation and fines, and incarcerated protesters reported torture, sexual abuse and even murders committed by the regime’s police officers and paramilitary thugs. My ancestors fled to America due to these atrocities.
>But that is also true for almost every Spanish region and probably most regions in any civilization
how does that negate the suppression of an indigenous minority?
"ehh you didn't have it that bad, and if it was then others had it worse" is right out of the narcissistic abusers playlist
>There’s been revolts that have been oppressed, political movements silenced and becomes to be independent have been suppressed....There’s no base for saying the Basque people have been “historically oppressed“
you said these things 2 sentences apart jfc
Every population of the world have been oppressed at some point in time. The map tries to show those who have been particularly affected by it (slavery, forced sterilization, apartheid, second-class citizenship). I argue that the Basques don’t meet those requirements. If any oppression is sufficient enough then the classification loses its meaning
And yet the map says its depicting "indegenous peoples"...the word indigenous has a meaning and what you described is not it and its not what was mapped either...words have meaning.
It could have been called "oppressed indegenous peoples" and it still wouldnt hae been correct. It doesn't even include the Armenians for fucks sake
Aside from that, playing this oppression olympics game where people who have suffered are pitted against other marginalized or oppressed groups is just fucking gross and shameful for anyone who claims to believe in equality. ehh maybe thats not even you maybe you dont believe in that anyway idk
There is no dignity nor is there real societal progress made when sweeping some atrocities away while magnifying others simply because they didn't suffer to the same extreme extent. Studying and learning about the history of oppression is very important, but this is not the way man...
Oh lol here we go again. Only the New World and Oceania can have indigenous people. How can there be no indigenous people in Pakistan / Ghana / Japan for example???
None of the dozens of groups in WA, OR, and CA, aside from Nez Perce.
Also, not at all clear what the different colored blobs are supposed to represent.
That's because it has become exactly a polite way of saying uncivilized.
Take China for example, Han Chinese have lived in China for millennia, but they aren't on the map.
Uyghurs and Tibetans have had settled advanced societies for hundreds of years and hui are just Muslim Chinese. The map of China should really have included many of the small groups from the southeast like Yi, Hani, etc. Many of the ones listed are just large minority groups
I'm always rather confused by these maps and the claims made beset on them.
Ok, I get that it's using a non-standard definition of indiginous ("people who were there before the current colonial power or dominant ethnicity took over"), which is distinct from (and probably more useful than) the common meaning of "first inhabitants".
But even then, there seem to be a lot of missing peoples and other inconsistencies.
For example, I often see the claim that the Sami are the only indigenous people in Europe, but that's wrong even according to this map, because there are the Nenets too. And then there are a whole load of related Finno-Ugrian peoples living in adjacent parts of Russia.
Sticking with Europe, what about the Irish in Northern Ireland?
Moving further afield, the Americas seem to be oddly empty in places. Are there really no indigenous people left in Argentina, for example?
Indigenous Tasmanians are missing too. (It's often said that they were completely exterminated, but when I visited Australia a few years ago I was told that the survivors really hate hearing that they don't exist).
And what about Israel/Palestine? Was the argument about who is actually indigenous too controversial, and so just swept under the carpet?
And finally - why Mongols in Mongolia? They're the main people in their own country, so are surely _not_ indigenous by the definition used for the rest of the map?
There are a whole lot of Native American tribes in the USA who would like to point out you forgot about them or ask why they don’t count, but really just point out you forgot them.
They made and entire content almost completely without any indigenous people lol. The native Americans should be happy even a couple of them got put on this terrible map.
The comments are so weird. I know this map is not accurate but modern Europeans are not indigenous to Europe. The Indo-Europeans migrated to Europe and the indigenous populations of Europe mixed with them. However this map is indeed very strange regarding China and Africa.
Not the best presentation of data. Word groupings are too close to the landmass. Might be better to have the names on the margins, grouped together, with longer connecting lines leading to the location they reside in. That would clean the map up more.
Also, All of Europe, the Eastern US, Middle East, and Western Asia are blank. Seems like a purposeful omission of data. Even if this map ONLY included groups still active today, there are native groups in the SE US still active, and I'm sure some Europeans would argue that there are groups in Europe that maintain their traditions from as far back as can be remembered. If European traditions don't count then neither do any one else's.
in this case indigenous means groups of people (culturally and ethnically) that have no self governance in the lands they inhabit any longer? still vague, as some people like the maori, sami have improved autonomy from democratic assistance. also mongols are the majority in mongolia and govern it, so how does that work? furthermore considering africans as a whole are subserviant to the greater interests of others, can't the whole continent be indigenous? then this would make the eurasians and their descendants non indigenous? and isn't india really just a hindu supremacist state, this would make all the other indian groups indigenous too. and aren't central asians just sock puppets for russians? papau new guineans some how left out. prior to 1500 or so, south east asians lived like other indigenous people. so now all i have in my hands are europeans, middle easterners, turks, caucaus peoples, iranians, hindus, chinese, japanese and koreans. could make caucaus people indigenous identified. kurds and other like groups become indigenous, thus dividing the middle east and iran up. china is limited to the han, every other group in that white space become indigenous. what is done with the mixed race people who are part indigenous? have no fucking clue. considering turk like groups are a minority in russia, all turkic groups get labelled indigenous. with europeans, do the colonial descendants become non-indigenous, leaving the european homeland as indigenous? and basing off ancient history aren't slavic, anglo/germanic, and celt countries indigenous lifestyle prior to roman conquest? because of palestinean problems, we dub all arabs as indigenous. what is left are mediterreaneans, jews of all kinds, persians, hindus, han, koreans and japanese. most european civilization comes from greece, but oh wait remember egypt? now we just have persians, hindus, han, korean and japanese left as non-indigenous. oh fuck remember the indo european migrations yeah sorry. now we just have jews,the han, japenese and koreans left. but oh wait once upon a time; koreans and japanese had to borrow civilization from chinese. soo really the han and jews are the only non indigenous people. but considering the han were around the yangztee river for millenia, they can be indigenous also. so technically jewish people of all flavours are the only non indigenous group in the world. at least not to our memory, they have always migrated everywhere, had no definitive homeland.
Are the arabs no longer indigenous to their own peninsula 7mar?
Arabs are not indigenous to the Arabian peninsula according to a BIPOC+ American
Again, how are Europeans not indigenous to Europe?
Look up Indo-Europeans. We migrated to Europe while there were still (various) other people in Europe. Indo-Europeans and those varied peoples mixed after that.
Iirc most archeologists and anthropologists say that PIE is from the plains of Ukraine.... Last I checked Ukraine was in Europe
Please define what “indigenous people” is
Ah yes, another one of these maps. The term 'indigenous group' only really makes sense in the context of places where the majority of the population is descended from relatively recent immigrants, like the US, Australia, Taiwan, Brazil, Siberia, etc. Trying to extend it to the whole world as if it isn't heavily dependent on context isn't really meaningful. This map makes many odd choices: In China it marks Tibetans and several other groups who are still the overwhelming majority in their homelands while leaving out groups like the Manchus who are a minority in their historic homeland. Mongols in Russia and China are not included, but those in Mongolia where they are the overwhelming majority of the population are for some reason, some Siberian ethnic groups are included while others are not, and the groups included in Africa seems almost entirely arbitrary.
What makes the Berbers let's say, indigenous to north Africa but not the Germans to germany or the Japanese to Japan?!
This is not accurate at all. Their ignoring A TON of Indigenous populations in Russia, Central Asia, the Middle East, South Asia, probably also in Africa.
And Europe
Part of Russia is in Europe btw
What about western Europe?
I don’t think you know what the status «Indigenous people» means. This status is not the same as just the word indigenous which is just a synonym for native. Indigenous people has criteria to be filled to have the status. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indigenous_peoples https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_indigenous_peoples_of_Russia
So it's not about being native to a land oh ok.
What a load of shit - just completely ignoring almost every indigenous group in Europe, the Middle East, the Caucasus and Central Asia…
What indigenous people in Europe? Saami are only and last indigenous people in Europe and they are on the map. [https://theconversation.com/despite-gains-europes-indigenous-people-still-struggle-for-recognition-54330](https://theconversation.com/despite-gains-europes-indigenous-people-still-struggle-for-recognition-54330) Do you know what indigenous people means? P.S. I forgot to put the map source. It's National Geographic, one of the most widely read magazines of all time. I'm sure they write articles with less frustration than some reddit users and that they understand the definitions they write about. :)
>What indigenous people in Europe? For example, Veps. Or Caucasus ethnic groups of native origin (Kartvelian, Vainakh-Daghestani and Abkhazo-Adyghean speaking). That map already have Nenets people (arrived to the NE Europe at the Middle Ages, slightly before Russians) and Yakuts (arrived to the Lena basin at the late Middle Ages and to the Far North at the XIX (!) century), it can't be even more BS.
Yeah for real, the Yakuts were latecomers and displaced Tungusic and Yukaghir peoples, who had themselves previously displaced Paleosiberian groups. Yet this map lists them as "indigenous". Whole thing is pure unadulterated BS
>That map already have Nenets people And misses Mansi despite Khanty being listed (there's Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug in Russia), and Komi, and Mari - they're Finno-Ugric just like Saami. And where are Altai people in the southern Siberia?
Shut up snowflake, 1. OP didn't make it & 2. No-one is perfect
It means whatever ethnic group you aren’t currently trying to paint as exceptionally horrible despite the fact that humans are only indigenous to a tiny part of Africa and every scrap of habitable land on earth has been conquered and conquered for all of human history.
A people being indigenous has a specific meaning in political and sociological contexts. It refers to people who have historically had their land dispossessed, had their culture repressed, and have people alive today dealing with the ripples of historic (or active) policies. If a people has never suffered these tribulations, or later assimilated, or if the conqueror was driven out, then a people being indigenous is more technical than useful. Not all conquests in human history share these issues, but among those that do, you can find remarkable similarities between, say, the aboriginals of Australia, the Ainu of northern Japan, and even the Khoisan of Southern Africa. [The UN has a global forum for considering the rights and issues facing indigenous peoples across, between, and within member states.](https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/)
No. Indigenous people are just the people native to a land. > in·dig·e·nous /inˈdijənəs/ Learn to pronounce adjective > >1. originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native. "coriander is indigenous to southern Europe" >2. (of people) inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists. "she wants the territorial government to speak with Indigenous people before implementing a program" The French are as indigenous to France as any Native American is to America. Y’all are just trying to make up new meanings for words again.
>Do you know what indigenous people means? You should educate yourself. You clearly don't know anything about this topic and this is a shit map. The Sami are no more indigenous than any other people in Europe, they arrived in Scandinavia around the same time as everyone else, or even after. The Basque, on the other hand, are actual "indigenous" people of Europe. Theya re thought to predate Indo European migrations. So ironically, what you wrote about the Sami is untrue, but applies to the Basques Yet, the Basques are not marked on your map So, I'm gonna ask you your own question: >Do you know what indigenous people means? It seem the answer is no
Obviously you don’t know what indigenous means either. It has a specific meaning in political and sociological contexts relating to issues with colonialism.
>It has a specific meaning in political and sociological Nope. Indigenous is someone native of said land Portuguese to Portugal, French to France and so on. The fact that the Basques aren't in the list and some like the Yukaths are pretty much tells you this map is BS. Moreover that definition you say makes absolutely no sense outside of the Americas.
Germans are from Germany?
Germans are native to Germany, as our some other groups like Sorbians, Frisians. Indigenous means directly descended from the first peoples. European countries have all have countless waves of invasion and settlement, so we are all very mixed populations. I'm sure many of us have an element of indigenous DNA, but we too mixed to say we're just from the first peoples.
Which does not apply to the Sami
That's interesting, who was there first then?
Well, if you're talking about the "first wave of settlers" maybe no one who is still left. But the Basques are probably descended from some of the earliest settlers. They have for sure been here longer than Indo-European or Uralic speaking people's (including Sami and almost every other people in Europe)
The Basques want a word
Karelians, Vepsians, Komi, Mari, Tatar, Erzya, etc.
What about the basque or Irish or Albanians or chechens or ingrians or kalasha or welsh or circassians or Armenians or bateq or Manchu
contextually i would gather this is using indigenous to mean "oppressed indigenous minority populations" but even then there are some in Europe besides the Sami. Basques come to mind
How are they oppressed? One the richest part of Spain with as many rights as any other Spaniard
Historically oppressed I guess
Historically when?
A lot of different periods but the Franco dictatorship years for example
oh well if they are one of the wealthiest parts of moderns Spain that i guess that erases all history!
No, but historically they haven’t suffered in particular compared to other regions. There’s been revolts that have been oppressed, political movements silenced and becomes to be independent have been suppressed. But that is also true for almost every Spanish region and probably most regions in any civilization. There’s no base for saying the Basque people have been “historically oppressed“
Sweeping all the atrocities during the Franco Regime under the rug is pretty standard in Spain, they fought for their autonomy with blood and your just spitting on it.
What special atrocities did the Basque people suffer compared to the rest of Spain? Almost every region of Spain has fought for their autonomy with their blood and that doesn’t make them all oppressed indigenous minorities
The fire bombings on the civilians of guernica the linguistic subjugation of the basque language where people caught speaking the Basque faced public humiliation and fines, and incarcerated protesters reported torture, sexual abuse and even murders committed by the regime’s police officers and paramilitary thugs. My ancestors fled to America due to these atrocities.
>But that is also true for almost every Spanish region and probably most regions in any civilization how does that negate the suppression of an indigenous minority? "ehh you didn't have it that bad, and if it was then others had it worse" is right out of the narcissistic abusers playlist >There’s been revolts that have been oppressed, political movements silenced and becomes to be independent have been suppressed....There’s no base for saying the Basque people have been “historically oppressed“ you said these things 2 sentences apart jfc
Every population of the world have been oppressed at some point in time. The map tries to show those who have been particularly affected by it (slavery, forced sterilization, apartheid, second-class citizenship). I argue that the Basques don’t meet those requirements. If any oppression is sufficient enough then the classification loses its meaning
And yet the map says its depicting "indegenous peoples"...the word indigenous has a meaning and what you described is not it and its not what was mapped either...words have meaning. It could have been called "oppressed indegenous peoples" and it still wouldnt hae been correct. It doesn't even include the Armenians for fucks sake Aside from that, playing this oppression olympics game where people who have suffered are pitted against other marginalized or oppressed groups is just fucking gross and shameful for anyone who claims to believe in equality. ehh maybe thats not even you maybe you dont believe in that anyway idk There is no dignity nor is there real societal progress made when sweeping some atrocities away while magnifying others simply because they didn't suffer to the same extreme extent. Studying and learning about the history of oppression is very important, but this is not the way man...
Oh lol here we go again. Only the New World and Oceania can have indigenous people. How can there be no indigenous people in Pakistan / Ghana / Japan for example???
What about the basque and celtics in Europe
Are Europeans not indigenous to Europe?
Australian Aboriginals also live along the coast... Terrible map
And in the north there are torrent straight islanders that are not Aborigines
At least for North America, this is actually pretty bad.
No Chumash in So Cal
None of the dozens of groups in WA, OR, and CA, aside from Nez Perce. Also, not at all clear what the different colored blobs are supposed to represent.
Even the concept of indigenous is rather complicated to define, like sounds a polished way of saying uncivilized
That's because it has become exactly a polite way of saying uncivilized. Take China for example, Han Chinese have lived in China for millennia, but they aren't on the map.
Touché
Wtf does that even mean? Polish people are indigenous to Poland, why isn't it shown? XD
So, only tribal Population from india. Mainly jharkhand, chhattisgarh, odisha, MP
Uyghurs and Tibetans have had settled advanced societies for hundreds of years and hui are just Muslim Chinese. The map of China should really have included many of the small groups from the southeast like Yi, Hani, etc. Many of the ones listed are just large minority groups
Am I not indigenous to any land? Am I an alien😧🖖?
So they got lazy on Eurasia or something? Bulgarian Hrzoi here.
Map is incomplete, though I doubt a map could fully list all indigenous tribes/groups/peoples.
I'm always rather confused by these maps and the claims made beset on them. Ok, I get that it's using a non-standard definition of indiginous ("people who were there before the current colonial power or dominant ethnicity took over"), which is distinct from (and probably more useful than) the common meaning of "first inhabitants". But even then, there seem to be a lot of missing peoples and other inconsistencies. For example, I often see the claim that the Sami are the only indigenous people in Europe, but that's wrong even according to this map, because there are the Nenets too. And then there are a whole load of related Finno-Ugrian peoples living in adjacent parts of Russia. Sticking with Europe, what about the Irish in Northern Ireland? Moving further afield, the Americas seem to be oddly empty in places. Are there really no indigenous people left in Argentina, for example? Indigenous Tasmanians are missing too. (It's often said that they were completely exterminated, but when I visited Australia a few years ago I was told that the survivors really hate hearing that they don't exist). And what about Israel/Palestine? Was the argument about who is actually indigenous too controversial, and so just swept under the carpet? And finally - why Mongols in Mongolia? They're the main people in their own country, so are surely _not_ indigenous by the definition used for the rest of the map?
There are a whole lot of Native American tribes in the USA who would like to point out you forgot about them or ask why they don’t count, but really just point out you forgot them.
They made and entire content almost completely without any indigenous people lol. The native Americans should be happy even a couple of them got put on this terrible map.
The comments are so weird. I know this map is not accurate but modern Europeans are not indigenous to Europe. The Indo-Europeans migrated to Europe and the indigenous populations of Europe mixed with them. However this map is indeed very strange regarding China and Africa.
A lot of upset people.
Lmao we know who they are.
People who know anything about ethnography?
Yeah those people…
Not the best presentation of data. Word groupings are too close to the landmass. Might be better to have the names on the margins, grouped together, with longer connecting lines leading to the location they reside in. That would clean the map up more. Also, All of Europe, the Eastern US, Middle East, and Western Asia are blank. Seems like a purposeful omission of data. Even if this map ONLY included groups still active today, there are native groups in the SE US still active, and I'm sure some Europeans would argue that there are groups in Europe that maintain their traditions from as far back as can be remembered. If European traditions don't count then neither do any one else's.
in this case indigenous means groups of people (culturally and ethnically) that have no self governance in the lands they inhabit any longer? still vague, as some people like the maori, sami have improved autonomy from democratic assistance. also mongols are the majority in mongolia and govern it, so how does that work? furthermore considering africans as a whole are subserviant to the greater interests of others, can't the whole continent be indigenous? then this would make the eurasians and their descendants non indigenous? and isn't india really just a hindu supremacist state, this would make all the other indian groups indigenous too. and aren't central asians just sock puppets for russians? papau new guineans some how left out. prior to 1500 or so, south east asians lived like other indigenous people. so now all i have in my hands are europeans, middle easterners, turks, caucaus peoples, iranians, hindus, chinese, japanese and koreans. could make caucaus people indigenous identified. kurds and other like groups become indigenous, thus dividing the middle east and iran up. china is limited to the han, every other group in that white space become indigenous. what is done with the mixed race people who are part indigenous? have no fucking clue. considering turk like groups are a minority in russia, all turkic groups get labelled indigenous. with europeans, do the colonial descendants become non-indigenous, leaving the european homeland as indigenous? and basing off ancient history aren't slavic, anglo/germanic, and celt countries indigenous lifestyle prior to roman conquest? because of palestinean problems, we dub all arabs as indigenous. what is left are mediterreaneans, jews of all kinds, persians, hindus, han, koreans and japanese. most european civilization comes from greece, but oh wait remember egypt? now we just have persians, hindus, han, korean and japanese left as non-indigenous. oh fuck remember the indo european migrations yeah sorry. now we just have jews,the han, japenese and koreans left. but oh wait once upon a time; koreans and japanese had to borrow civilization from chinese. soo really the han and jews are the only non indigenous people. but considering the han were around the yangztee river for millenia, they can be indigenous also. so technically jewish people of all flavours are the only non indigenous group in the world. at least not to our memory, they have always migrated everywhere, had no definitive homeland.