I suppose natives would be the first to ever exist there. Not sure you'd be able to ever prove something like that and, more importantly, why it would matter to the people arriving to take your land.
I'm okay with the term 'natives' as a reference to whatever local inhabitants happen to live on a piece of land. I just don't agree it should mean you're special for existing somewhere first.
But which groups of people do you consider native to where they currently live?
My point being that no one knows about that far back in our history, its only guesses.
Sounds like by your definition everyone who does expanded outwards from the first tribe is an "invader".
And of course this is assuming man envolved from ape at some point and was not created in God's image. Either way, there is no proof of where this happened. Many say Africa, if so, then are we all native Africans and invaders of the world by your standards?
The people living from Aluetian Island down to la Tierra de Fuego have been living in the New World for thousands and thousands of years just about totally isolated from the Old World. This people are native to the Old World, just as Europeans are native to Europe and the Old World. Do you consider Europeans to be invaders and not natives of Europe? Is thousands of years of civilization not enough to be native by your standards?
Stop changing the meaning of words, makes you no different than a leftist.
So yes, 'native' is an actual term. Typically used to refer to whoever is living somewhere before someone else. You've won the argument and I admit I was being a little facetious when saying "there were no natives." I mean technically, I am native to the land I was born on, by any literal definition of the term.
All I'm saying is the term doesn't hold any value in an argument over who is 'right' about being somewhere.
A leftist would claim that this land belongs to someone else. I don't think it belongs to anyone, just that certain people manage to hold pieces longer than others.
Yes I agree. It makes no sense to play "what if" games on what the New World would be like without the mass migration of Europeans and others. Lots of people out there want to play the "us vs them" blame game, and one way to do that is play the races against each other. European influnce was not the first of the problems in the greater native society nor will it be the last. Also, a lot these people dont realize that the Europeans coming to America was welcomed by some natives and opposed by others. Like many other situations elsewhere in the world, some sided with the newcomers and others did not. These conflicts had been going on for generations before the European arrival.
Anways, you def are open minded and not like a leftist. I just want to help people see both sides of the picture, and as a European and Native American myself I have a decent idea.
So which homeland has natives?
I suppose natives would be the first to ever exist there. Not sure you'd be able to ever prove something like that and, more importantly, why it would matter to the people arriving to take your land.
I'm okay with the term 'natives' as a reference to whatever local inhabitants happen to live on a piece of land. I just don't agree it should mean you're special for existing somewhere first.
But which groups of people do you consider native to where they currently live?
My point being that no one knows about that far back in our history, its only guesses.
Sounds like by your definition everyone who does expanded outwards from the first tribe is an "invader".
And of course this is assuming man envolved from ape at some point and was not created in God's image. Either way, there is no proof of where this happened. Many say Africa, if so, then are we all native Africans and invaders of the world by your standards?
The people living from Aluetian Island down to la Tierra de Fuego have been living in the New World for thousands and thousands of years just about totally isolated from the Old World. This people are native to the Old World, just as Europeans are native to Europe and the Old World. Do you consider Europeans to be invaders and not natives of Europe? Is thousands of years of civilization not enough to be native by your standards?
Stop changing the meaning of words, makes you no different than a leftist.
So yes, 'native' is an actual term. Typically used to refer to whoever is living somewhere before someone else. You've won the argument and I admit I was being a little facetious when saying "there were no natives." I mean technically, I am native to the land I was born on, by any literal definition of the term.
All I'm saying is the term doesn't hold any value in an argument over who is 'right' about being somewhere.
A leftist would claim that this land belongs to someone else. I don't think it belongs to anyone, just that certain people manage to hold pieces longer than others.
Yes I agree. It makes no sense to play "what if" games on what the New World would be like without the mass migration of Europeans and others. Lots of people out there want to play the "us vs them" blame game, and one way to do that is play the races against each other. European influnce was not the first of the problems in the greater native society nor will it be the last. Also, a lot these people dont realize that the Europeans coming to America was welcomed by some natives and opposed by others. Like many other situations elsewhere in the world, some sided with the newcomers and others did not. These conflicts had been going on for generations before the European arrival.
Anways, you def are open minded and not like a leftist. I just want to help people see both sides of the picture, and as a European and Native American myself I have a decent idea.