Saving biodiversity starts with saving indigenous peoples
That’s the indigenous people who ate the megafauna to extinction everywhere they turned up?
Saving biodiversity starts with saving indigenous peoples
That’s the indigenous people who ate the megafauna to extinction everywhere they turned up?
Unless they’re white.
At last someone admits that “indigenous peoples” are to be treated as pets.
Oo’s a clever boy, then?
Should we consider stronger measures, in the interest of preserving biodiversity naturally, to encourage them to remain and breed in their indigenous lands?
And of course John to stop these evil colonialists infringing on the indigenous people of England.
Saving biodiversity starts with saving indigenous peoples
I’m going to take a wild guess here: The author doesn’t define the terms “biodiversity” or “indigenous”, does he?
Bogan
Apparently there are no indigenous people in England, or Europe for that matter apart from the Sami.
Oh definitely the Irish. You couldn’t get more indigenous than the Irish. Whatever country they’ve emigrated to.
Strangely, The Times has turned off comments for this article – unlike The Guardian, they usually do so only for ongoing court cases or topics they deem too highly contentious.
Ummm yeah.. “indiginous”( read: primitive” ) people do increase “biodiversity”.
That this mostly happens because they “open up” (destroy) matured ecosystems as they move around, giving pioneers and less competitive species a chance. For a while..
Same as storms, floods , volcanoes, earthquakes…..
“Apparently there are no indigenous people in England, or Europe for that matter apart from the Sami.”
Funny that, isn’t it? That the Sami, who arrived in Scandinavia during the 2nd millennium BC, are indigenous, but the Swedes, some of whom will have ancestry dating back to the time of the first settlers, around 12,000BC, are not.
See also the different results you get when searching Google etc. for “indigenous people of Iceland” (settled in the 10th century), and “indigenous people of New Zealand” (settled in the 13th century).
The Moriori were (and still just about are) indigenous to New Zealand/Chatham Islands but that didn’t prevent their near genocide at the hands of the equally indigenous Māori. They’re not all noble savages.
Tsk. Savagery can be noble. Just read Beowulf.
Last night I watched a YouTube video by a couple of bird photographers discussing their recent trip to New Guinea. They mentioned that there were 800 indigenous languages and that things were so “tense” they needed a military escort (they passed the results of a battle just a few hours old). Even their wildlife guide ate the birds of paradise.
The current teaching is that the Maori are indigenous and the claim they displaced the Moriori is just a colonial excuse to displace them etc.
In Quebec I gather that there was some fuss when it was pointed out that the local First Nations group had actually travelled up with the Europeans and cleared the area, I think they settled on claiming as they were related to the original indigenous group it wasn’t the same as the Europeans settling there so it was still their traditional land etc.
I believe a similar they were related groups is used for the Maori/Moriori history as well
KyleT
February 27, 2023 at 6:53 pm
I was entertained when my googling brought forth an article by some young lady who proudly claimed to be 100% pure Maori, untainted by that foul white blood.
There are plenty of Maori who have little to no pakeha blood.
Why is that amusing?
I’ve met some who know their genealogy back four generations, and any settler inheritance must be before then.
Sure, skiting about it is weird, but mostly because it is a big “up yours” to her fellow Maori who aren’t.