When does a country become "your land"? 19 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#1 9 years ago

I was just doing this assignment for a social science class, and someone mentioned something about how the only people who can talk about immigrants in the USA are the original Americans, the Native Americans. So, this naturally got me wondering. The Apachean people (Navajo+Apache) have a language that's closest relatives are in Alaska and Canada. This would strongly suggest that the Apacheans came down in a separate group than all their neighbors, and are probably the "newcomers" to the American Southwest. Granted, they're still Native "North-American-Continent-ers", but I've got to think the Hopi and Zuni would be a bit miffed that the Navajo have the biggest reservation if they had an established history to trace this stuff by.

This also got me thinking about tribes in Europe. When do those of you who live in Germany or in Benelux or England call people "natives" of your country? I seem to recall something about the Germanic people being pushed west by the Hunnic invasion, and something about the Celtic people having most of Western Europe before that. Wouldn't it be a bit strange to discuss French immigration policy and claim that only the Bretons or Basques had the moral authority for that sort of thing?

People from outside Europe or the USA feel free to discuss, those are just the places I have the most familiarity with for examples. Any of the Turkish members of the board know the ethnic history of Anatolia well enough to tell us something? Any Australasians that can shed some insight on whether Chinese immigrants are native enough?

tl,dr: what's the statute of limitations for being a "native"?




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#2 9 years ago

It's your land whenever you have enough strength to control it. The whole notion of "natives" is ridiculous. The "white man" beat the Native Americans, so it became their land. The Normans beat the Saxons, so England became their land. The Israeli's beat the Arabs so now Palestine is theirs, and so on.

If these situations ever reverse, the reverse will become true. Nativeness is a falsehood.




SeinfeldisKindaOk

5.56 smoke Haji every day

55 XP

18th July 2008

0 Uploads

8,397 Posts

0 Threads

#3 9 years ago

People love to go back generations and generations to try to claim that they are "more native" than others. I think when you're born in a place you're native to there. Even then, if you move somewhere else, especially early on, you can be considered native to the place you move. For example, kids whose parents are in the US army are often born abroad but usually move back to the states pretty soon. I would say kids like that are native to the US rather than whatever country their parents were stationed in.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#4 9 years ago

Generally it seems what has been accepted is whoever can form a government the longest or maintain some sort of society will become native to that land, or push another group off their land.

It's easy to apply that concept to the old world where it has been fairly rigid through time with some exceptions, by that point the modern cultures we know of today solidified and created their nation-states. I

This becomes more of a problem in applying the traditional conventions that came out of colonization.

I know that by this standard it would have legitimized what the apartheid regime did in South Africa, creating a nice society for white South Africans at the expense of the rest. The Africans who live in South Africa generally view the British settlers as colonists, though they view the Afrikaners (Dutch settlers) as "native".

Though all-in-all I don't see using that as a justification to shove people off their land, especially in modern times. I think it can become problematic when you fashion your state to be of a homogeneous culture, and that is when you begin to run into problems over people claiming to be more native than the other.

That being said there is a difference between the assimilation of culture and ethnogenesis, and simply killing and pushing others off.

This being said nationalism in general is a bitchy subject.




Captain Fist

DEUS LO VULT

113,265 XP

17th December 2005

0 Uploads

10,629 Posts

0 Threads

#5 9 years ago
This also got me thinking about tribes in Europe. When do those of you who live in Germany or in Benelux or England call people "natives" of your country? I seem to recall something about the Germanic people being pushed west by the Hunnic invasion, and something about the Celtic people having most of Western Europe before that. Wouldn't it be a bit strange to discuss French immigration policy and claim that only the Bretons or Basques had the moral authority for that sort of thing?

In this case, I believe, it's different, the Germans were pushed west and absorbed Celtic tribes, the mixed "race" kind of ended up owning the previous Celtic/Roman territories of France and Britain.




AlDaja

SFC III Troubleshooter.

50 XP

5th September 2006

0 Uploads

11,263 Posts

0 Threads

#6 9 years ago

Afterburner;5229644It's your land whenever you have enough strength to control it. The whole notion of "natives" is ridiculous. The "white man" beat the Native Americans, so it became their land. The Normans beat the Saxons, so England became their land. The Israeli's beat the Arabs so now Palestine is theirs, and so on.

If these situations ever reverse, the reverse will become true. Nativeness is a falsehood.

This...

to the Topic, you don't own the land, you share it...least that's the way it should be, but people fear and choose to live apart from those whom they differ...really differ and claim areas to promote their society and their way of life and will defend it, to the death if need be or be forced off of the land and try to survive elsewhere.




Emperor Benedictine

You can't fire me, I quit

55 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,437 Posts

0 Threads

#7 9 years ago
Professor Dr. Scientist;5229648People love to go back generations and generations to try to claim that they are "more native" than others. I think when you're born in a place you're native to there.

I would have to agree. Either you were born and raised somewhere, or you weren't. How many of your ancestors inhabited a certain area of land makes no difference. Other than that, what constitutes "nativeness" is generally determined by the degree of political expediency for the group claiming it.




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#8 9 years ago
Crazy Wolf;5229630This also got me thinking about tribes in Europe. When do those of you who live in Germany or in Benelux or England call people "natives" of your country? I seem to recall something about the Germanic people being pushed west by the Hunnic invasion, and something about the Celtic people having most of Western Europe before that. Wouldn't it be a bit strange to discuss French immigration policy and claim that only the Bretons or Basques had the moral authority for that sort of thing? (...) tl,dr: what's the statute of limitations for being a "native"?

It's quite tricky, I guess that if a group had a foothold somewhere or an extended amount of time (centuries) they sort of become "native" as they become part of the habit/region so to say. If you'd go back enough far in time, any group has migrated (and sometimes replaced, peacefully or with vionce or melted together) to a piece of land and any human could be seen as a "settler" .

Though this really is only useful when recording history and simplyinf things things to do so. When it comes to people in the current society you could argue that any person who feels like a citizen of a given country, is indeed such. Although even this is kinda tricky, as an immigrant/emmigrant you may find yourself split and feel connected to both/multiple countries and love/respect them in the same or different ways. SO you'd really have to go and ask every individually and ask them what they would indenify themselves as/with.

And then we have the third option, the legal definition... any one who is granted citzenship may claim to be part of that country.

In the end, I guess it's "our" land, and our could be any group you identify yourself with. It sure isn't just yours unless you manage to kick everyone else out and off your piece of land.

For me, personally: If I'd emmigrate to an other country I would probably continue to feel Dutch... one doesn't easily give up his/her roots, not all of them anyway. It would be an absolute guess to say how much of a foreigner or fellow countryman I'd feel in any given country abroad (Germany, France, Canada, Australia, Japan, you name it).




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#9 9 years ago
Professor Dr. Scientist;5229648People love to go back generations and generations to try to claim that they are "more native" than others. I think when you're born in a place you're native to there.

I'd agree with this, but I would also include where you are raised matters just as much. If you are born during your mom's visit to France, but a week after your birth you and mom return home to New York, and are raised there, I'd call you a New Yorker.

But really, all this crap about "Native Americans" and "white men took it over" is stupid. People with bigger and better weapons have been taking over land since the dawn of man.




Mihail VIP Member

President of Novistrana

50 XP

19th January 2003

0 Uploads

15,509 Posts

0 Threads

#10 9 years ago

as soon as I kill everyone who dares defies me.




  • 1
  • 2