Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
In most of the non-anglo Americas, the local majority group of long establishment often considers themselves indigenous ou quasi indigenous. When they think of this at all.
|
Jamaica still pays tribute heavily to its African roots -- see reggae music for instance. Black Jamaicans are the majority but the fact that they are part of the African diaspora that was brought involuntarily as forced labor to replace the original islanders (who died from European conquest) is still part of the cultural consciousness.
I'm not as knowledgeable about the French and Hispanic Americas' relationship with their indigenous past but I know Haitians changed their namesake island from Saint-Domingue to an indigenous name post-revolution as a symbolic gesture.
Also, I don't think there's any real gatekeeper to consult for considering yourself "indigenous" or "quasi indigenous" either but I am pointing out that I still see the point of those who say "well, all the New Worlders are equally "non-native", unless they trace roots to Amerindians who literally did become the first people to occupy the land, speak and develop thousands of languages, cultures, tribes, ways of life etc. only found there and developed there for thousands or years not hundreds until they were so heavily decimated, so a Chinese Vancouverite, Jewish New Yorker, Black Jamaican, Italian Argentine, even French Canadian are still "non-native compared to the real "deep-rooted inhabitants". I also see the point of those who say all these people mentioned who came in the last few centuries or generations
are "natives", maybe not necessarily using the term indigenous but you can if you like, because they are born and raised in their place of cultural origin and upbringing and thus contribute to their city, so it doesn't matter if 10 years ago was when their family arrived, 100 or 1000 years. Both perspectives have their points. But it's trickier for me to judge the validity of the "within the groups that have moved to the New World and also back and forth within it in the last 500, 400 years, who is more legit", like is Anglo-oriented Italian, Greek or Jewish Montrealer, German Midwesterner, or Chinese Vancouverite its own "native" identity enough as French Canadian or African American, if you are going to argue that French Canadian or African American is on par with (or at least close to) Navajo, Ojibwe and Inuit in "nativeness"?
I also don't care to judge if a self-declared 1% Cherokee white US southerner has more claim on calling their country their native land vs. Hispanic border town residents between Texas and Mexico who are I dunno 70% indigenous New Worlder by descent and 30% European colonist by ancestry or something, but who are children of illegal undocumented immigrants who crossed back and forth sometime a decade or two ago. But people will make these arguments.
But I guess the only gatekeeping there is who has power (the power can be political, legal, socio-economic, cultural such as mass media etc.) to shape the character of the place. This includes not just power to decide who to let in and who to not let in by immigration, but also how to organize and promote your domestic culture, teach it in school, portray and also showcase your nation's self-image in the media to your own citizens, and even to the world (e.g. that's why African Americans, Asian Americans etc. care so much about seeing themselves in the image of America for instance in Hollywood movies). The fact of how long a person (or their family/ancestry) has been in a place is only one factor among others that shape whether they are seen by others or by self as "established".
After all, Ashkenazi Jews could call themselves "native" or indigenous to places like Germany, France, even Poland, Russia and by time elasped, they may have a greater claim to those places (being there in Medieval times) than even the most deeply rooted non-indigenous new worlders (eg. African Americans, French Canadian, Tejanos, New England Puritan descendants etc.). But it's not shocking why despite more than 1000 years in European countries, they never felt at home or saw themselves as the "indigenous" Europeans, while in the US, which was far more friendly and accomodating, they became "native New Yorkers" etc. Some members of racial minorities have expressed the sentiment that in places like the US feel like they're felt to feel they don't "belong" as much as white Americans regardless of if they've been there as long as white Americans.
If we're willing to bite the bullet on okay, let's reject the "liberal" consensus (more common in the Anglo world like you say, but I can't help but wonder if it's also since the Anglo world is so powerful and not threatened by cultural loss but is in fact "winning", they're more able to afford to spend a little reflection on "historical guilt", like the British Empire and then later the US, throwing the weight of Anglo culture on everyone) regarding "everyone belongs everywhere" we still have to make the judgement call on why we think one land belongs to another more "legitimately". Is it just status quo from past military conquests?
Then it just is all about realpolitik and power (or perhaps past power, which might be militaristic then, but now is economic/social/cultural like how US or Anglo culture doesn't need to spread by Americans physically moving and colonizing places).
Who gets to decide the character of London, New York, Paris etc.? And does the answer differ for some town of ten thousand rural folks instead? Is it those with money parked there, those with deep roots in the city, those with other connections etc.?
And if it is about a battle between various people who all want to see the city change or not change in some direction or another (e.g. some guy wants more immigrants/transplants, some guy wants fewer; some guy wants to see the historical building preserved, others think a new shopping mall is better, some are glad to see diverse restaurants replace "traditional" cuisine, others are sad to see them go) and the results of the battle are based on say money, or ability to lobby politicians or something, then it's still realpolitik and pragmatic and there's no principle on "who belongs" any more than there was in the days when "who belongs" was decided by war-ships and battalions or swordsmen and archers. At least, I'll concede cultural battles are at least fought in more civilized ways (even if they can get nasty now like debates about immigration and gentrification etc.) with lower casualty counts, than in the days when "this place has changed" meant that the city-state across the hill sacked your city state and killed all its soldiers, took its women and kids as wives and labor and forced assimilation.
Whatever upset I'll have that my favorite pizza parlor has been replaced by a restaurant from a cuisine I don't like as much by a mom and pop, or that I'm hearing more languages I don't understand on the bus, I'll still concede that what they're doing is perfectly respectful and voluntary if they aren't doing anything illegal or harming me personally, and as long as they are not trying to "impose" their culture on me, there's no comparison to the past ways in which cultures spread that were far more nasty (military conquest, border disputes, pogroms, forced assimilation, relocations) or even things that are going now in the world (like China's forced assimilation of Uigher minorities).
Prev
Linear Mode
