But it is applied in practice to mean "not of Eurpean descent" and to give certain groups special privileges. For example, a small group of very loud "indigenous" Hawaiians have been able to block the Thirty Meter Telescope for years.
People have settled on these islands in separate waves. Why should the arrival of Europeans be the deciding line as to who is considered "indigenous". Especially on the Hawaiian islands where polynesian settlement does not long predate European settlement. It seems an arbitrary and political distinction. You never hear reference to indigenous Europeans for example.
I've heard references to indigenous European people, most recently when the Sami were the topic of discussion but also when people were arguing over who had the strongest claim to Kosovo and the Basque region. But it's true I usually hear the term up here in Alaska, a place with 11 distinct indigenous cultural groups. It's a very useful word.
Anyway, if you want to talk about language and concepts that differentiate between long term residents and recent arrivals, or natives and colonizers, or indigenous communities and immigrants, you should start a new thread.
In our discussions of Israel and Palestine I use the word 'indigenous' to refer to the communities of people who have lived in Palestine for thousands of years. I'm not making a distinction between Jews and Christians and Muslims, because members of those faith groups (and others) are indigenous Palestinians.
But how do you know that the people calling themselves "Palestinian" today descent from people living in "Palestine" for 1000s of years?
For each and every individual, I don't. But there's plenty of historical evidence and the results of DNA analysis to support the basic premise that the Palestinian people (Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druze, and others) are members of an ethnic group and community that has been in the area for thousands of years. So much evidence in fact that you'd have to be pretty clueless to think otherwise.
Nablus, Jericho, Jenin, and Jerusalem were established thousands of years ago and have been continuously inhabited by indigenous Palestinians ever since.
Those places being inhabited for a long time does not guarantee that the people living there now are descendants of people living there in 1000 BCE.
There's plenty of historical evidence to make a convincing case that the overwhelming majority are. There's also enough evidence right here to make the case that you're quibbling over minor details because you can't muster a better argument.
They are currently inhabited by immigrants as well, especially Jerusalem. Israel's citizens are mostly immigrants and the children of immigrants who arrived in Palestine over the past 80-90 years, i.e. not indigenous despite their ancient ancestral link to the area.
If their ancestors lived in the land of Israel in the 1st millennium BCE why are they less "indigenous" than the "Palestinian" Arabs who are actually indigenous to Arabia? That exposes the political nature of the term.
Because the Ashkenazi have 1500-2000 years of European heritage, a distinctly European culture, and a heck of a lot of European ancestry. They have ties to the area but until recently, not close ones. They even see themselves as being distinct and separate from the folks whose ancestors never left the region.
I don't, and I have no idea what gave you the idea that I would.
Because you ALWAYS take the side of these Arabs.
I'm unable to open that page which might be due to a slow connection. I'll try reading it later. But I agree with Dr. Keder that not all current Palestinians were born into the long established communities in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Some of them are recent arrivals or the children of immigrants. BTW, changing family names to fit in with the new neighbors is nothing new.
But that would mean changing the name the other name. Your point is well taken. Surely many Al-Masris etc. changed their names, so the number of new arrivals is even higher than a survey of family names would reveal.
A lot of Ashkenazi Jews did it when they emigrated to Israel. My grandfather did it when he came to America. I'm pretty sure it's commonplace. And in Israel it was required of Jews who wanted to work in government service, so there's that.
I know. But they do not pretend that their great
10-grandfathers planted the olive groves they are tending to or some other Fakestinian mythology.
You think people who live on family farms are only pretending that the olive trees they tend were planted by family members? Seriously?
If you don't understand how someone can be a refugee without being a member of an indigenous population that was made refugee at the same time and in the same place, or how someone can be both a Jew and a Palestinian, or that someone can be a citizen in one place and also a member of an indigenous population from another place, then you really don't understand how categories work.
I understand all too well. I do not think you don't understand how "Palestinian refugees" are qualitatively different than any other refugees. In definition and political significance. Also, you do not seem to understand that PLO changed the meaning of the word "Palestinian" in the 1960s.
No, you really don't.
'Refugee' is one category. 'Indigenous' is a different category. Some people are neither, some people are both, and some people are one but not the other.
Also, you haven't presented evidence that the definition of Palestinian was changed in the 1960s, or that it became substantially different from the way Ben Gurion and the Jewish Agency for Palestine used it in the 1930s and 1940s, you've merely asserted it. I doubt you did any actual research but if you did, you can present your findings any time now.
Where did you find that quote? Did you look for the source material or did you just assume it was accurate and complete without looking at context?
What quote?
The text from UN Resolution 302 you thought was a definition of indigenous. The one you didn't bother to check for accuracy or context but posted as though you had.
