No title available
EXPECTATIONS
gracie abrams
No title available
roma★
RMH
KIROKAZE
Noah Kahan
Cookie Run:Kingdom Official!
Cosmic Funnies
🩵 avery cochrane 🩵
Monterey Bay Aquarium
No title available
Origami Around
izzy's playlists!
tannertan36
Fieri Frames
Jimmy Eat World
No title available
No title available
seen from United States
seen from Ecuador
seen from Türkiye
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from United States
seen from Ecuador
seen from Brazil
seen from Ghana
seen from Pakistan
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Vietnam
seen from Congo - Brazzaville
seen from Uzbekistan
seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Canada
@dragon-says-goodnight
never have i ever (answer what youve done)
dyed my hair
been in europe
played a sega game
gotten a piercing
eaten lamb that wasn't in curry
played piano
been to LA
watched naruto
i have done 2 or more of these
i have never done anything on this poll (you win!!!)
A drank a glass of milk in front of my boyfriend and he reacted like I'd killed someone in front of him
In my experience, people tend to either really love or really hate milk as a beverage. I don't see much neutrality when it comes to milk.
He HATES milk, it disgusts him on some basal level and he refuses to touch it
I prefaced the milk drinking by telling him "I'm going to do something disgusting" and he verbally berated me the whole time i drank it XD
I love milk, milk is delicious, loved it my entire life.
Was in London when I was 11, sits ages ago but I tried some milk there.
I didn’t drink milk while I was in England again because it was gross :x
So maybe he just needs to try a different brand? XD
Just a reminder that Frederick Banting, discoverer of the process to synthesise insulin, sold the patent for $1 because it was so important to him that it be widely available and easily mass produced. Yes, you should be angry.
Friendly reminder that this is 100% directly caused by government regulations. If anybody with the facilities could sell insulin, any time the price went up too high somebody new would come in and sell the same stuff for 5% less and steal the entire market. But the government stepped in and said “only these three companies are allowed to sell insulin and if anybody else tries they go to prison because, uh, safety I guess” so now those three companies can just agree to start charging a hundred times as much and you just have to suck it up.
government: *sees problem where there isn’t one*
government: *makes fake problem real and vastly worse*
Would a socialized medicine system guarantee another monthly does?
Yes.
I get a prescription with enough insulin that lasts me roughly a year each time. As insulin doses vary from person to person, this will last longer for some, and shorter for others.
Doesn’t matter jackshit how often I go and get insulin, if I came the day after I picked one up the pharmacist might ask why, and if I said my insulin supply got damaged/destroyed they wouldn’t bat an eyelash.
Now if you did this on the regular for some weird reason, there might be some alarm bells I guess?
But yeah, my slow acting and fast acting insulin costs me the equivalent of like 100 - 150 dollars a year in total, and even if I needed 10x the amount of insulin, the cost would be the same.
as much as i love seeing orcas launching what appears to be intentional coordinated attacks on human ships it also makes me very sad because if it starts to become a genuine problem or even an extremely minor disruption to business people are going to just start killing them and i don't know that the orcas really understand the power differential they're dealing with here. that is why i am starting an organization whose mission will be to establish communication with the orca populace and provide them with equipment and training in order to level the playing field and empower them to take control of the seas, with the potential to open up trade and diplomatic relations on their own terms
never fear! killing whales in a legal way is extremely difficult because they have vast international immunity. in the united states (which means the two hundred mile eez from each coast) orcas are protected by the marine mammal protection act. anti-whaling acts apply to all cetaceans unless otherwise specified. there are only three countries where one could get away with purposefully and obviously harming orcas- anywhere else and they’d get in serious trouble with whichever regulatory body applies. because of their international power i do endorse the inclusion of orca populations in the united nations.
If you mean the three countries that does commercial whaling - I don’t think you’d get away with hunting orca in either of those countries. Iceland only hunts for Minke and Fin whales, Japan I’m actually not sure about, and in Norway it’s only Minke whales that’s legs to hunt.
learning the truth about TERFs is like learning the resident evil witch is just a nice old lady that wants to live peacefully and have basic rights and a herb garden
Women who help & prioritize women and don’t put up with male bs are always demonized under patriarchy. That’s why witches were persecuted. That’s why radfems are persecuted now.
What are radfems smoking
redheddebeauty translation: “i prioritize certain women over others and that makes me a good person! i love inducing the dysphoria of transgender women by calling their struggles ‘male bs’, because i don’t have the sense of human decency to just support them and include them and learn about them! i’m not educated at all about what transgender people go through and how bad gender dysphoria can be, and i’m not planning to learn, because i’m stubborn! blah blah blah patriarchy and stuff! the salem witch trials don’t have much to do with this, but i’m gonna compare those women’s horrible suffering to me and my friends being told off for harrassing trans women! how dare they have morals! us radfems are sweet innocent angels and don’t deserve to be judged ever, even though we hate men and are mean to trans people, especially trans women! i’m such a victim!”
please shut the fuck up, both of you.
Also their translation: “I think harassing lesbian rape and DV survivors, clocking GNC women on the spot just because I think they’re trans, calling bi women slurs, slut shaming, saying women have “internalized misogyny” because they don’t think exactly like me, and being creepy and rapey towards cis women in general is being pro woman. Why do people hate us again?”
y'all know that a lot of “witches” were men right
Get out of here with your historical facts!
Men, children, and even animals. Salem was absolutely nothing compared to the tens of thousands, potentially millions, of people who were killed, tortured, or imprisoned in Europe - but Salem is a good example of people mistakenly thinking that it was all women. Fourteen women and five men were hanged, and the only person tortured to death was an older man who was pressed with stones.
TERFs aren’t a Resident Evil character, don’t do zombies dirty by comparing them to TERFs. TERFs are transphobic (they believe that trans people should be denied the treatment and support necessary for their condition, and as a result regularly harass trans people), they are misandrist (they ignore genuine men’s issues, like the rape of men not being legally recognized in many countries, and even reinforce or put in place sexist laws like those rape laws and the Duluth model), they deny the existence of countless victims of the witch trials (including children who were beaten and whipped brutally) because of those people’s gender, they misgender and harass cis women in bathrooms (because they presume them to be trans based on their presentation, PCOS, status as intersex, and so on), they deny abuse perpetrated by women (and thus invalidate both male and female victims of this), they accused a fifteen year-old dying statutory rape victim of being a rapist (to the point that their accusations dominated the news, simply because the adult woman who slept with him had received money to do so, but was fully capable of denying the request, and should have because he was a literal dying child), they call bisexual women and transguys traitors (amongst slurs and shaming bi women who date men), they have used many manipulation tactics (such as the “internalized misogyny” accusations), and I could go on. People dislike TERFs because of their actions, not bad PR.
@eeveelutionsforequality
Your whole post is just utter lies.
Radical feminists prioritize women & girls.
What patriarchy does to other men? Is not the fight of women when men created the laws that oppress them
Not our fucking problem.
Terfs have never harassed any woman for being in a space that belongs to her.
What you misogynistic fuckwads dont get that woman is NOT A FUCKING GENDER.
It is A SEX CLASS.
Trans women are male.
Neither are we against transitions
But we ACTUALLY LISTEN TO DE-TRANSITIONERS.
WHICH YALL TREAT HORRIBLY
& no its bc yall just spread blatant fucking lies
there isn’t a single lie in my post.
it’s not patriarchy that threatened Erin Pizzey when she said women could be abusive too and men could be victims, it’s not patriarchy that wrote the Duluth Model, it’s not patriarchy that constantly protests attempts to change the definition of rape to include male victims and/or female perpetrators in places where the law is gendered, it wasn’t patriarchy that pulled fire alarms when groups met to discuss men’s issues… that was all feminists. if it’s not your problem then why keep getting involved?
terfs have harassed tonnes of cis women in bathrooms thinking that they’re transwomen because they’re gnc or have a masculine physique.
terfs have constantly attacked means of transition, from specific gender clinics to in general. terfs have constantly expressed a disbelief in the validity of being trans at all, as you have here, invalidated trans people, discouraged transition for anybody, blamed it on outdated freudian theories of kinks and penis envy, and fought to make it basically impossible for anybody to transition, going as far as calling it a form of conversion therapy.
it must be tough being a detransitioner, it’s a horrible thing to go through, but scooping them up and indoctrinating them into a cult that says that the evil trans agenda is to blame, that it wasn’t a tragic misdiagnosis but actually a representation of what will happen to everyone if you don’t join the terfs and open your wounds to the world to fight to protect everyone… that’s not treating somebody kindly. then when people react to their misrepresentation of the situation by explaining that, although it’s sad when misdiagnosis happens, those situations are statistically incredibly rare and not representative of most people’s experiences, that’s not being mean, that’s debating misinformation.
again, there wasn’t a lie in my post. and it was only a fraction of the amount of bullshit that I’ve seen terfs do and support.
Receipts on supposed terfs pulling the fire alarm on groups she met to try & get the definition of rape changed
Bc that sound like GRADE A BULLSHIT.
This is the Duluth Model btw.
Sound pretty reasonable but I am sure you will find violence in it.
NO TERF HAS EVER SAID THAT TRANS PPL DO NOT EXIST.
We have all repeatedly been consistent that you are NOT THE OTHER SEX
Womanhood is a SEX CLASS
NOT A GENDER BASED ONE BASED ON REGRESSIVE STEREOTYPES
Reciepts on terfs supposedly attacking GNC women. When so much of radical feminist theory promotes GNC.
Terfs are not discouraging anyone.
Terfs are the ONLY ONES WHO ARE NOT SELLING PEOPLE WHO SUFFER FROM DYSPHORIA PIPE DREAMS
You can get VAGINAL PROLAPSE, BLOOD CLOTTING, CANCER & LOSS OF FERTILITY & SEXUAL FUNCTION. Also loss of your uterus
Meaning up a full sexual transition you LOOSE the ability to ORGASM OR EVEN GET AROUSED.
ESPECIALLY IN TRANS MEN.
Sissy porn, futa hentai, crossdressing is very much how a sizeable amount of trans women have said they found out they are trans
So yes a quite sizeable amount are in it bc it is a fetish.
Transitioning gay, or lesbian kids or just gnc is conversion therapy.
It is more acceptable to be trans than it is to be gay.
Even in these homophobic societies they are more partial to trans ppl than they are gay ppl
We don’t scoop up De-transitioners.
We are just the only ones listening to them.
That a lot of dysphoria is due to sexual trauma, abuse, depression & anxiety esp if you are girl.
That society treats being a girl as a curse. Stifles freedom & expression. Rife w/ sexual abuse & catcalling. Constantly shrinking yourself to not get unwanted advances from grown ass fucking men.
Of course these girls would want to be boys & men.
Why wouldn’t they?
It still doesn’t help if you are trying to escape your womanhood to replace with LIFELONG MEDICATION & HEALTH PROBLEMS
“Receipts on supposed terfs pulling the fire alarm on groups she met to try & get the definition of rape changed Bc that sound like GRADE A BULLSHIT.”
those were two separate items in a list of things that feminists have done - they have pulled fire alarms on men’s rights meetings to disrupt them, and they have protested against changing rape laws to make them gender neutral in India, amongst iirc other places. a feminist also laughed at a man in parliament here when he tried to bring up issues like male suicide, saying we can address that when half of the people in parliament are women.
“This is the Duluth Model btw. Sound pretty reasonable but I am sure you will find violence in it.”
violence, no. it’s unnecessarily gendered and, in practice, is used in things like police training in a way that gives them a bias towards arresting the man, as he is the physically larger, allegedly more privileged, and often less emotionally resonant party.
“NO TERF HAS EVER SAID THAT TRANS PPL DO NOT EXIST.”
this is hilarious. no, they don’t deny that there are people out there who claim to be trans, but they do say that said claim is illegitimate, that the underlying neurological condition doesn’t exist, and that trans people are not valid.
in fact one said it like two minutes ago to me (and I’ve even seen terfs gloating on here when they manage to inhibit care): https://eeveelutionsforequality.tumblr.com/post/633129857030766592/sighing-is-a-song-said-eeveelutionsforequality
“We have all repeatedly been consistent that you are NOT THE OTHER SEX Womanhood is a SEX CLASS NOT A GENDER BASED ONE BASED ON REGRESSIVE STEREOTYPES”
trans is a neurological condition that causes one to require the sex characteristics of the opposite sex, it is also not a gender based on gender roles.
“Reciepts on terfs supposedly attacking GNC women. When so much of radical feminist theory promotes GNC.”
stop rephrasing what I said, harassing people in the bathroom because you think them trans does not mean that you don’t in theory support being gnc. many people have been targeted by terfs and others, in bathrooms, who are not trans but are presumed such because of stature, being gnc, and so forth.
“Terfs are not discouraging anyone. Terfs are the ONLY ONES WHO ARE NOT SELLING PEOPLE WHO SUFFER FROM DYSPHORIA PIPE DREAMS You can get VAGINAL PROLAPSE, BLOOD CLOTTING, CANCER & LOSS OF FERTILITY & SEXUAL FUNCTION. Also loss of your uterus Meaning up a full sexual transition you LOOSE the ability to ORGASM OR EVEN GET AROUSED. ESPECIALLY IN TRANS MEN.”
transmen can get increased sexual function, as a result of clitoral growth, but potentially decreased after bottom surgery, yes… treatment has side effects. the blood clotting and cancer risk increase to that of a cis male because… that’s how hormones work. not everybody gives a shit about fertility - there’s adoption, freezing eggs, not wanting kids, etc. if I listed the potential side effects of my migraine meds in all caps it would sound worse than what you’ve just said, but I still take them because I would rather take a slim risk of certain things than suffer with my migraine. treating a medical condition inevitably has side effects, but terfs are most definitely not the “ONLY ONES” saying that… every single gender clinic, including informed consent where that’s available, will give you a full list of all of the potential side effects, links to resources, they’ll explain it to you, they ask in appointments for proof you have understood those risks, and they have workshops where specialists talk you through all of the risks and why they happen.
“Sissy porn, futa hentai, crossdressing is very much how a sizeable amount of trans women have said they found out they are trans”
oh no a handful of women on the internet realised they could change their sex characteristics to look more female, as their brain wanted, when they saw it online. oh no people experiment with their style as they discover that just dressing different won’t cut it, that the clothes aren’t enough to make their body look how they need. however will I argue against this mic drop.
“So yes a quite sizeable amount are in it bc it is a fetish.”
none of that means it’s a fetish.
“Transitioning gay, or lesbian kids or just gnc is conversion therapy.”
not if they’re transitioning because they need to because they have a medical condition - if their sole motivation is to be not gay, or if somebody if forcing it on them to make them not gay, then that’s not good. that doesn’t mean that every transman who likes women is doing it for those reasons.
“It is more acceptable to be trans than it is to be gay.”
a tiny graphic with three data points that haven’t been adequately explained is not an argument. if the gender changes are only allowed if one becomes an outcast caste, if one is forced to do it as conversion therapy, etc, it’s not the same as actually allowing people to transition to treat gender dysphoria, treating them as said sex, etc. it doesn’t say what discrimination and social struggles are faced by those people. it’s also irrelevant to this discussion because I haven’t been claiming anybody is more discriminated against.
“We don’t scoop up De-transitioners. We are just the only ones listening to them.”
you’re not, that’s just the narrative y'all spin.
“That a lot of dysphoria is due to sexual trauma, abuse, depression & anxiety esp if you are girl.”
gender dysphoria is not caused by that, a misdiagnosis of that as being gender dysphoria can occasionally happen but it’s not as common as terfs constantly make out.
“That society treats being a girl as a curse. Stifles freedom & expression. Rife w/ sexual abuse & catcalling. Constantly shrinking yourself to not get unwanted advances from grown ass fucking men.”
again, no. there are difficulties faced by both sexes, but being female is not constant abuse and constant assault and constant catcalling. all of those things happen to both sexes, and none of those things happen constantly.
“Of course these girls would want to be boys & men. Why wouldn’t they? It still doesn’t help if you are trying to escape your womanhood to replace with LIFELONG MEDICATION & HEALTH PROBLEMS”
specialists ascertain whether you meet the symptom criteria before giving you a diagnosis - if you’re not experiencing that incongruence with your sex characteristics, and you’re demonstrating a want to escape what you perceive as being the societal disdain for you, that will be flagged.
oh while I’m here, some sources on terfs doing messed up stuff: https://eeveelutionsforequality.tumblr.com/post/631055048555806720/terfs-stop-calling-us-pedophile-apologists
TERFS were claiming a woman who had raped kids was a trans woman, because the woman wasn’t conventionally attractive.
TERFs were mocking the pictures of two lesbians getting married, insisting one of them was a trans woman and so they weren’t lesbian because her shoulders were too broad.
TERFs were defending two cis women who had sexually assaulted a trans woman in a bathroom, because “well ‘he’ shouldn’t have been in the woman’s bathroom!” (Sounds familiar? It’s the exact same reasoning as “if she didn’t wanna be raped she shouldn’t have done x”)
TERFs were shitting on the picture of a thin woman in a bathing suit saying shit about “him”, while praising the curvier woman in a bathing suit. Whoopsie, turns out the thin one they were shitting on was cis and the curvy woman they were praising was a trans woman.
And that’s just a few examples of the shit I’ve seen on tumblr.
I know this is 2 years old but I want sources for each and every one of these claims. Those are some pretty big accusations there buddy, you need receipts for that.
Meanwhile trans activists are such vile monsters that we have an entire blog (@tra-receipts) dedicated to keeping evidence of you guys being racist, homophobic and misogynistic.
Girl, it’s over two years ago, if you think I remember the urls of these people at this point, especially a url for those specific posts, you’ve gotta be smoking something. They might not be too hard to dig up with some Google searches; but you’re just as capable as doing that as I am. I’d do it if this wasn’t over two years old.
But well, some of these posts I’ve reblogged at some point before this post; at least the third one I’m absolutely sure is somewhere on my blog, as I has a decently long argument with another person about it, who was defending the two cis women.
Girl I’ve seen several blogs with receipts of the exact same shit coming from your camp. It’s heinous no matter where it comes from, doesn’t mean I think it’s right coming from trans folk and activists, but don’t go around throwing stones in glass houses - you all are just as guilty, some of the most fucked up misogynistic shit I’ve seen said have come from the TERF camp, gotten some pretty misogynistic shit thrown from your group at myself too, because I didn’t agree with you all. Unlike you though, that doesn’t mean I’m gonna imply every individual TERF are any of those things, because I do understand you’re individuals .
Also I’m not an activist or trans - just a woman with opinions sometimes on a blog; it ain’t that deep.
“how dare you ask me to prove stuff I pulled out of my ass 😡”
Do you keep sources for posts you’ve posted two and a half years ago on hand? If not, stop being a hypocrite.
learning the truth about TERFs is like learning the resident evil witch is just a nice old lady that wants to live peacefully and have basic rights and a herb garden
Women who help & prioritize women and don’t put up with male bs are always demonized under patriarchy. That’s why witches were persecuted. That’s why radfems are persecuted now.
What are radfems smoking
redheddebeauty translation: “i prioritize certain women over others and that makes me a good person! i love inducing the dysphoria of transgender women by calling their struggles ‘male bs’, because i don’t have the sense of human decency to just support them and include them and learn about them! i’m not educated at all about what transgender people go through and how bad gender dysphoria can be, and i’m not planning to learn, because i’m stubborn! blah blah blah patriarchy and stuff! the salem witch trials don’t have much to do with this, but i’m gonna compare those women’s horrible suffering to me and my friends being told off for harrassing trans women! how dare they have morals! us radfems are sweet innocent angels and don’t deserve to be judged ever, even though we hate men and are mean to trans people, especially trans women! i’m such a victim!”
please shut the fuck up, both of you.
Also their translation: “I think harassing lesbian rape and DV survivors, clocking GNC women on the spot just because I think they’re trans, calling bi women slurs, slut shaming, saying women have “internalized misogyny” because they don’t think exactly like me, and being creepy and rapey towards cis women in general is being pro woman. Why do people hate us again?”
y'all know that a lot of “witches” were men right
Get out of here with your historical facts!
Men, children, and even animals. Salem was absolutely nothing compared to the tens of thousands, potentially millions, of people who were killed, tortured, or imprisoned in Europe - but Salem is a good example of people mistakenly thinking that it was all women. Fourteen women and five men were hanged, and the only person tortured to death was an older man who was pressed with stones.
TERFs aren’t a Resident Evil character, don’t do zombies dirty by comparing them to TERFs. TERFs are transphobic (they believe that trans people should be denied the treatment and support necessary for their condition, and as a result regularly harass trans people), they are misandrist (they ignore genuine men’s issues, like the rape of men not being legally recognized in many countries, and even reinforce or put in place sexist laws like those rape laws and the Duluth model), they deny the existence of countless victims of the witch trials (including children who were beaten and whipped brutally) because of those people’s gender, they misgender and harass cis women in bathrooms (because they presume them to be trans based on their presentation, PCOS, status as intersex, and so on), they deny abuse perpetrated by women (and thus invalidate both male and female victims of this), they accused a fifteen year-old dying statutory rape victim of being a rapist (to the point that their accusations dominated the news, simply because the adult woman who slept with him had received money to do so, but was fully capable of denying the request, and should have because he was a literal dying child), they call bisexual women and transguys traitors (amongst slurs and shaming bi women who date men), they have used many manipulation tactics (such as the “internalized misogyny” accusations), and I could go on. People dislike TERFs because of their actions, not bad PR.
@eeveelutionsforequality
Your whole post is just utter lies.
Radical feminists prioritize women & girls.
What patriarchy does to other men? Is not the fight of women when men created the laws that oppress them
Not our fucking problem.
Terfs have never harassed any woman for being in a space that belongs to her.
What you misogynistic fuckwads dont get that woman is NOT A FUCKING GENDER.
It is A SEX CLASS.
Trans women are male.
Neither are we against transitions
But we ACTUALLY LISTEN TO DE-TRANSITIONERS.
WHICH YALL TREAT HORRIBLY
& no its bc yall just spread blatant fucking lies
there isn’t a single lie in my post.
it’s not patriarchy that threatened Erin Pizzey when she said women could be abusive too and men could be victims, it’s not patriarchy that wrote the Duluth Model, it’s not patriarchy that constantly protests attempts to change the definition of rape to include male victims and/or female perpetrators in places where the law is gendered, it wasn’t patriarchy that pulled fire alarms when groups met to discuss men’s issues… that was all feminists. if it’s not your problem then why keep getting involved?
terfs have harassed tonnes of cis women in bathrooms thinking that they’re transwomen because they’re gnc or have a masculine physique.
terfs have constantly attacked means of transition, from specific gender clinics to in general. terfs have constantly expressed a disbelief in the validity of being trans at all, as you have here, invalidated trans people, discouraged transition for anybody, blamed it on outdated freudian theories of kinks and penis envy, and fought to make it basically impossible for anybody to transition, going as far as calling it a form of conversion therapy.
it must be tough being a detransitioner, it’s a horrible thing to go through, but scooping them up and indoctrinating them into a cult that says that the evil trans agenda is to blame, that it wasn’t a tragic misdiagnosis but actually a representation of what will happen to everyone if you don’t join the terfs and open your wounds to the world to fight to protect everyone… that’s not treating somebody kindly. then when people react to their misrepresentation of the situation by explaining that, although it’s sad when misdiagnosis happens, those situations are statistically incredibly rare and not representative of most people’s experiences, that’s not being mean, that’s debating misinformation.
again, there wasn’t a lie in my post. and it was only a fraction of the amount of bullshit that I’ve seen terfs do and support.
Receipts on supposed terfs pulling the fire alarm on groups she met to try & get the definition of rape changed
Bc that sound like GRADE A BULLSHIT.
This is the Duluth Model btw.
Sound pretty reasonable but I am sure you will find violence in it.
NO TERF HAS EVER SAID THAT TRANS PPL DO NOT EXIST.
We have all repeatedly been consistent that you are NOT THE OTHER SEX
Womanhood is a SEX CLASS
NOT A GENDER BASED ONE BASED ON REGRESSIVE STEREOTYPES
Reciepts on terfs supposedly attacking GNC women. When so much of radical feminist theory promotes GNC.
Terfs are not discouraging anyone.
Terfs are the ONLY ONES WHO ARE NOT SELLING PEOPLE WHO SUFFER FROM DYSPHORIA PIPE DREAMS
You can get VAGINAL PROLAPSE, BLOOD CLOTTING, CANCER & LOSS OF FERTILITY & SEXUAL FUNCTION. Also loss of your uterus
Meaning up a full sexual transition you LOOSE the ability to ORGASM OR EVEN GET AROUSED.
ESPECIALLY IN TRANS MEN.
Sissy porn, futa hentai, crossdressing is very much how a sizeable amount of trans women have said they found out they are trans
So yes a quite sizeable amount are in it bc it is a fetish.
Transitioning gay, or lesbian kids or just gnc is conversion therapy.
It is more acceptable to be trans than it is to be gay.
Even in these homophobic societies they are more partial to trans ppl than they are gay ppl
We don’t scoop up De-transitioners.
We are just the only ones listening to them.
That a lot of dysphoria is due to sexual trauma, abuse, depression & anxiety esp if you are girl.
That society treats being a girl as a curse. Stifles freedom & expression. Rife w/ sexual abuse & catcalling. Constantly shrinking yourself to not get unwanted advances from grown ass fucking men.
Of course these girls would want to be boys & men.
Why wouldn’t they?
It still doesn’t help if you are trying to escape your womanhood to replace with LIFELONG MEDICATION & HEALTH PROBLEMS
“Receipts on supposed terfs pulling the fire alarm on groups she met to try & get the definition of rape changed Bc that sound like GRADE A BULLSHIT.”
those were two separate items in a list of things that feminists have done - they have pulled fire alarms on men’s rights meetings to disrupt them, and they have protested against changing rape laws to make them gender neutral in India, amongst iirc other places. a feminist also laughed at a man in parliament here when he tried to bring up issues like male suicide, saying we can address that when half of the people in parliament are women.
“This is the Duluth Model btw. Sound pretty reasonable but I am sure you will find violence in it.”
violence, no. it’s unnecessarily gendered and, in practice, is used in things like police training in a way that gives them a bias towards arresting the man, as he is the physically larger, allegedly more privileged, and often less emotionally resonant party.
“NO TERF HAS EVER SAID THAT TRANS PPL DO NOT EXIST.”
this is hilarious. no, they don’t deny that there are people out there who claim to be trans, but they do say that said claim is illegitimate, that the underlying neurological condition doesn’t exist, and that trans people are not valid.
in fact one said it like two minutes ago to me (and I’ve even seen terfs gloating on here when they manage to inhibit care): https://eeveelutionsforequality.tumblr.com/post/633129857030766592/sighing-is-a-song-said-eeveelutionsforequality
“We have all repeatedly been consistent that you are NOT THE OTHER SEX Womanhood is a SEX CLASS NOT A GENDER BASED ONE BASED ON REGRESSIVE STEREOTYPES”
trans is a neurological condition that causes one to require the sex characteristics of the opposite sex, it is also not a gender based on gender roles.
“Reciepts on terfs supposedly attacking GNC women. When so much of radical feminist theory promotes GNC.”
stop rephrasing what I said, harassing people in the bathroom because you think them trans does not mean that you don’t in theory support being gnc. many people have been targeted by terfs and others, in bathrooms, who are not trans but are presumed such because of stature, being gnc, and so forth.
“Terfs are not discouraging anyone. Terfs are the ONLY ONES WHO ARE NOT SELLING PEOPLE WHO SUFFER FROM DYSPHORIA PIPE DREAMS You can get VAGINAL PROLAPSE, BLOOD CLOTTING, CANCER & LOSS OF FERTILITY & SEXUAL FUNCTION. Also loss of your uterus Meaning up a full sexual transition you LOOSE the ability to ORGASM OR EVEN GET AROUSED. ESPECIALLY IN TRANS MEN.”
transmen can get increased sexual function, as a result of clitoral growth, but potentially decreased after bottom surgery, yes… treatment has side effects. the blood clotting and cancer risk increase to that of a cis male because… that’s how hormones work. not everybody gives a shit about fertility - there’s adoption, freezing eggs, not wanting kids, etc. if I listed the potential side effects of my migraine meds in all caps it would sound worse than what you’ve just said, but I still take them because I would rather take a slim risk of certain things than suffer with my migraine. treating a medical condition inevitably has side effects, but terfs are most definitely not the “ONLY ONES” saying that… every single gender clinic, including informed consent where that’s available, will give you a full list of all of the potential side effects, links to resources, they’ll explain it to you, they ask in appointments for proof you have understood those risks, and they have workshops where specialists talk you through all of the risks and why they happen.
“Sissy porn, futa hentai, crossdressing is very much how a sizeable amount of trans women have said they found out they are trans”
oh no a handful of women on the internet realised they could change their sex characteristics to look more female, as their brain wanted, when they saw it online. oh no people experiment with their style as they discover that just dressing different won’t cut it, that the clothes aren’t enough to make their body look how they need. however will I argue against this mic drop.
“So yes a quite sizeable amount are in it bc it is a fetish.”
none of that means it’s a fetish.
“Transitioning gay, or lesbian kids or just gnc is conversion therapy.”
not if they’re transitioning because they need to because they have a medical condition - if their sole motivation is to be not gay, or if somebody if forcing it on them to make them not gay, then that’s not good. that doesn’t mean that every transman who likes women is doing it for those reasons.
“It is more acceptable to be trans than it is to be gay.”
a tiny graphic with three data points that haven’t been adequately explained is not an argument. if the gender changes are only allowed if one becomes an outcast caste, if one is forced to do it as conversion therapy, etc, it’s not the same as actually allowing people to transition to treat gender dysphoria, treating them as said sex, etc. it doesn’t say what discrimination and social struggles are faced by those people. it’s also irrelevant to this discussion because I haven’t been claiming anybody is more discriminated against.
“We don’t scoop up De-transitioners. We are just the only ones listening to them.”
you’re not, that’s just the narrative y'all spin.
“That a lot of dysphoria is due to sexual trauma, abuse, depression & anxiety esp if you are girl.”
gender dysphoria is not caused by that, a misdiagnosis of that as being gender dysphoria can occasionally happen but it’s not as common as terfs constantly make out.
“That society treats being a girl as a curse. Stifles freedom & expression. Rife w/ sexual abuse & catcalling. Constantly shrinking yourself to not get unwanted advances from grown ass fucking men.”
again, no. there are difficulties faced by both sexes, but being female is not constant abuse and constant assault and constant catcalling. all of those things happen to both sexes, and none of those things happen constantly.
“Of course these girls would want to be boys & men. Why wouldn’t they? It still doesn’t help if you are trying to escape your womanhood to replace with LIFELONG MEDICATION & HEALTH PROBLEMS”
specialists ascertain whether you meet the symptom criteria before giving you a diagnosis - if you’re not experiencing that incongruence with your sex characteristics, and you’re demonstrating a want to escape what you perceive as being the societal disdain for you, that will be flagged.
oh while I’m here, some sources on terfs doing messed up stuff: https://eeveelutionsforequality.tumblr.com/post/631055048555806720/terfs-stop-calling-us-pedophile-apologists
TERFS were claiming a woman who had raped kids was a trans woman, because the woman wasn’t conventionally attractive.
TERFs were mocking the pictures of two lesbians getting married, insisting one of them was a trans woman and so they weren’t lesbian because her shoulders were too broad.
TERFs were defending two cis women who had sexually assaulted a trans woman in a bathroom, because “well ‘he’ shouldn’t have been in the woman’s bathroom!” (Sounds familiar? It’s the exact same reasoning as “if she didn’t wanna be raped she shouldn’t have done x”)
TERFs were shitting on the picture of a thin woman in a bathing suit saying shit about “him”, while praising the curvier woman in a bathing suit. Whoopsie, turns out the thin one they were shitting on was cis and the curvy woman they were praising was a trans woman.
And that’s just a few examples of the shit I’ve seen on tumblr.
I know this is 2 years old but I want sources for each and every one of these claims. Those are some pretty big accusations there buddy, you need receipts for that.
Meanwhile trans activists are such vile monsters that we have an entire blog (@tra-receipts) dedicated to keeping evidence of you guys being racist, homophobic and misogynistic.
Girl, it’s over two years ago, if you think I remember the urls of these people at this point, especially a url for those specific posts, you’ve gotta be smoking something. They might not be too hard to dig up with some Google searches; but you’re just as capable as doing that as I am. I’d do it if this wasn’t over two years old.
But well, some of these posts I’ve reblogged at some point before this post; at least the third one I’m absolutely sure is somewhere on my blog, as I has a decently long argument with another person about it, who was defending the two cis women.
Girl I’ve seen several blogs with receipts of the exact same shit coming from your camp. It’s heinous no matter where it comes from, doesn’t mean I think it’s right coming from trans folk and activists, but don’t go around throwing stones in glass houses - you all are just as guilty, some of the most fucked up misogynistic shit I’ve seen said have come from the TERF camp, gotten some pretty misogynistic shit thrown from your group at myself too, because I didn’t agree with you all. Unlike you though, that doesn’t mean I’m gonna imply every individual TERF are any of those things, because I do understand you’re individuals .
Also I’m not an activist or trans - just a woman with opinions sometimes on a blog; it ain’t that deep.
Absolutely disgusting segment on NBC about “polyamorous” people raising families together and having kids calling it “polyfamory” Like?? You’re gonna mess up those kids so bad and also like…why?
But this lady on the news is calling it “so called traditional families” and “There’s no hierarchy in this type of marriage/ family like with so called traditional families”
Why do we stray from Christ??
Why do theocratic fascists think the christ myth should have any bearing on life in 2023 in america, a non christian country.
Gentiles always seem to forget that marriage isn't a christian invention or specific to christians.
And then just shilling for the post wwii nuclear model that was invented to sell real estate 😂
Meanwhile that admittedly gross "polyfamily" is closer to what a household's makeup was a hundred forty years ago before the shilling started.
Sir, you are denser than a neutron star.
"America, a non-Christian country"
What are you saying lol, America was founded on Christian values. Marriage is a Christian Sacrament that secular people have appropriated. Regardless of your worldly definition of marriage, a true marriage can only be between one (1) man and one (1) woman.
My friend, my dude, marriage is certainly not an original Christian sacrament. Jewish people married before Christianity existed. Hindu people married before Christianity existed. Chinese people married before Christianity existed. The vikings had marriage. Almost every single culture you can think of has some sort of marriage, and a large portion of them hadn’t even heard of the Christian god, especially as they lived before Jesus kicked his mothers stomach for the first time. Marriage outdates Christianity by thousands of years. That’s like saying you yourself invented speaking English, because you speak English.
Marriage is something that has existed since before written history. The earliest recorded marriage occurred in 2350 BC in the Mesopotania, and certainly had absolutely nothing to do with the Abrahamic god, and followed a polytheistic religion.
If secular people have appropriated marriage from Christians, you have to also claim Christians appropriated it from others who appropriated it from others who appropriated it from others who appropriated it from an ancient polytheistic religion that can be traced back to around 6000 BC.
🙄
The Christian Sacrament of Marriage is not comparable to secular marriage. God Himself blesses a Christian Marriage, and one man and one woman become one flesh: no other culture has viewed or done marriage this way (maybe the Jews). My point stands. Just because people did it before doesn't mean Christians appropriated marriage.
Except that’s not what you said, you didn’t say that Christian marriage is somehow unique to other marriages. You made the claim that secular marriages is appropriated from Christians. This makes no sense whatsoever.
You’re also defining marriage by modern Christian values, claiming it’s the only valid marriage. What you’re saying here, and what you were saying, are two completely different things.
Also I was just using your own logic against you, you were the one claiming secular people had appropriated from Christians. If that’s the case, Christians also appropriated marriage. One cannot be true, without the other being true. If one is untrue, so is the other, which I agree on. Neither Christians or secular people appropriated marriage.
I wasn't saying two different things, you're just bad at understanding what I'm saying.
The modern secular view on marriage is a bastardisation of Christian Marriage.
Before Christian Marriage, so-called secular marriage was just two people boinking each other. The man had all the power and could cast aside his wife for any reason, rather than the man and the woman being equals, which was a concept introduced through Christian Marriage. There was nothing for early Christians to appropriate, not even from the Jews, who had demanded to be allowed to divorce, whereas Christian Marriages have to be annulled.
You've still not managed to undermine my original point.
Well, you’re adding context now which wasn’t added or even implied in the original that I replied to. That I can’t read additional context from your mind is hardly my fault. But then, that’s also why we discuss things, so one party can add further context to their argument and the other can reply.
As far as I know; there wasn’t much secular marriage before Christianity. Atheism wasn’t exactly big in bygone eras. They just followed other religions - religious marriage, whether Christian or not, isn’t secular, by definition.
And marriage was historically often about politics in higher class society, economical and about uniting two families, or starting a family together, heck some people get married due to legalities. Not to mention that a lot of them were even arranged- an arranged marriage can hardly be about “just two people boinking”
Secular marriage today isn’t even about that - they’re atheist, why on earth would they need to get married for that? If that’s all it was, they certainly wouldn’t spend money and time on a wedding. I think you need to talk to some non-Christians, whether they follow a different religion or are atheist, and actually hear why they chose to get married, rather then jump to your own conclusion about people you clearly know little about.
You are aware there’s Christian marriages being dissolved through divorce all the time right? It all depends on your denomination. Unless you’re gonna “No True Scotsman” this and claim those Christians aren’t actually Christian? Also Hinduism, as far as I’ve understood it; didn’t allow for divorce either back in the day.
Your claim that men and women were equal in Christian marriages back in the day is laughable - even if you can make the claim that wives had more rights in a Christian marriage than others, in comparison to todays standards, there’s nothing there where you can apply the label “equal”. Here, straight from scripture: "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands". Nothing about that, describes a marriage between equals. Heck it’s even relatively recent that marital rape was considered rape. True marital equality that we see today, came from secular values, not religious ones.
Now, a lot of secular marriages in the west *do* take a lot from Christian marriage, I won’t argue with you there. But the same can be said for secular marriages in countries with other majority religions - they take a lot from the majority religions there as well. It’s because religion is often not separated from politics and education, and therefore influence the culture immensely.
So if you want to see secular marriage being more separate from Christian traditions, I’d advice advocating for more separation from religion and the general culture, separation of religion from politics, separation of religion from schools, encourage people who aren’t Christian to use phrases such as “happy holidays”, even “happy Yule”, rather than “merry Christmas”, and any other ways you can think of to separate your religion from the general culture of your nation, so that your traditions and beliefs aren’t kinda forced into non-Christian peoples lives, whether they want it to or not. Essentially you can’t expect a country to be culturally Christian, and then complain that those who doesn’t believe pick up things from the culture where they live, get educated and raised.
Absolutely disgusting segment on NBC about “polyamorous” people raising families together and having kids calling it “polyfamory” Like?? You’re gonna mess up those kids so bad and also like…why?
But this lady on the news is calling it “so called traditional families” and “There’s no hierarchy in this type of marriage/ family like with so called traditional families”
Why do we stray from Christ??
Why do theocratic fascists think the christ myth should have any bearing on life in 2023 in america, a non christian country.
Gentiles always seem to forget that marriage isn't a christian invention or specific to christians.
And then just shilling for the post wwii nuclear model that was invented to sell real estate 😂
Meanwhile that admittedly gross "polyfamily" is closer to what a household's makeup was a hundred forty years ago before the shilling started.
Sir, you are denser than a neutron star.
"America, a non-Christian country"
What are you saying lol, America was founded on Christian values. Marriage is a Christian Sacrament that secular people have appropriated. Regardless of your worldly definition of marriage, a true marriage can only be between one (1) man and one (1) woman.
My friend, my dude, marriage is certainly not an original Christian sacrament. Jewish people married before Christianity existed. Hindu people married before Christianity existed. Chinese people married before Christianity existed. The vikings had marriage. Almost every single culture you can think of has some sort of marriage, and a large portion of them hadn’t even heard of the Christian god, especially as they lived before Jesus kicked his mothers stomach for the first time. Marriage outdates Christianity by thousands of years. That’s like saying you yourself invented speaking English, because you speak English.
Marriage is something that has existed since before written history. The earliest recorded marriage occurred in 2350 BC in the Mesopotania, and certainly had absolutely nothing to do with the Abrahamic god, and followed a polytheistic religion.
If secular people have appropriated marriage from Christians, you have to also claim Christians appropriated it from others who appropriated it from others who appropriated it from others who appropriated it from an ancient polytheistic religion that can be traced back to around 6000 BC.
🙄
The Christian Sacrament of Marriage is not comparable to secular marriage. God Himself blesses a Christian Marriage, and one man and one woman become one flesh: no other culture has viewed or done marriage this way (maybe the Jews). My point stands. Just because people did it before doesn't mean Christians appropriated marriage.
Except that’s not what you said, you didn’t say that Christian marriage is somehow unique to other marriages. You made the claim that secular marriages is appropriated from Christians. This makes no sense whatsoever.
You’re also defining marriage by modern Christian values, claiming it’s the only valid marriage. What you’re saying here, and what you were saying, are two completely different things.
Also I was just using your own logic against you, you were the one claiming secular people had appropriated from Christians. If that’s the case, Christians also appropriated marriage. One cannot be true, without the other being true. If one is untrue, so is the other, which I agree on. Neither Christians or secular people appropriated marriage.
The World’s Indigenous Peoples
This map by @bhabna_ uses data from the Indigenous World 2022 report to show the population distribution of the roughly 476 million Indigenous peoples around the world.
by @VisualCap
interesting that certain countries aren’t portrayed as having any indigenous people.
Wonder why that is
Saying “there are no indigenous people in germany” is equal to “the germans have no right to germany”. it’s not just a silly map, its a normalization of very dangerous ideas
That is because indigenous people doesn’t just mean indigenous to the region.
It’s a stupid name, because it certainly gives off the completely wrong idea to what it means.
So yes, Germans are indigenous to Germany, but they are not an Indigenous People, just like Han Chinese are indigenous to a region in Northern China, but they’re not an Indigenous People; because neither group fits the definition.
The picture posted above says: “Indigenous Peoples” has no official definition by the UN (…) Instead, organizations utilize a modern understanding of traits including: - self identification -historical continuity with pre-settler societies -distinct systems and culture -and a commitment to preserve heritage and environments. for one, i would like to ask what “modern understanding” means. but more importantly, i would like to ask why such an important (and intuitive) term has no definition. this elasticity allows for manipulation. on the surface, the mention of “pre-settler” societies seems to exclude europe from the idea of being indigenous to some area (which, once again, why would you allow for such glaring and obvious mistake?). but let me ask - how is “pre - settler” defined? is there a time period to which it is limited? it can mean 19th centure just as much as 5th? does roman colonization count? do the Irish or Scottish not count? they have been colonized by the english after all. outside of this trait, do european nations not fit the criteria? there is an unspoken, disrespectful caveat to this “modern” definition. not disrespectful to the nations who are omitted - but the peoples who are considered indigenous. it’s a word that functionally is a modern translation of ‘savage’ or ‘primitive’. of ‘unable to create political structures’. a euphemism of ‘non-white’. they are patronizingly praised for ‘commitment to preserve heritage and environment’, as if the functioning states of european nation-states do not do so in a procedural and effective manner. imprecise concepts in highly influential and polarizing subjects do not exist as an overlooking. they exist specifically to cause polarization and possibly, enable political gain. if there is no definition, the designation of a people as ‘indigenous’ is entirely arbitrary, subject to political need. the infographic says this itself - the reason why there is no definition of ‘indigenous’ is because of 'diverse identities and histories’. that means, indirectly, that if any precise definition were to be instituted, many nations considered to be indigenous would have to be refused that status. because their history would have to be examined and verified, their right to claim the status would have to be tested. and like with the massive bantu migrations in africa, many indigenous peoples would turn out to be conquerors and colonizers in sheeps clothes. if you have to reinvent what basic wording mean to make your system work, perhaps the system isnt very sound in the first place.
To answer a large portion of this, let me just copy paste first something I wrote on another re log of this post:
This is why our classification makes more sense. We don’t talk about indigenous people, we talk about “urfolk” - meaning “ancient people”, which is defined in two ways. One of them is pretty much the same as in English, being a people that lived in a geographical location before the conquering or colonisation of that area, and who has kept some or all of their own social, economical, cultural and political institutions.
“A tribe people in independent states who through their own social, cultural and economical relationships, separates themselves from other parts of the national community, and whose status wholly or partially are regulated by their own customs and traditions, especially by special laws or regulations”
There is a clear definition to us what Indigenous People mean, and that’s why I don’t really like the English terminology, because it’s downright misleading to what it actually means.
As @alaija pointed out in her reblog, the Maori are considered Indigenous despite not having been in New Zealand for 700 years yet, but the Japanese aren’t considered as such despite being in Japan for 2 - 3 thousand years. And that is because they fit the before-mentioned definitions.
>A tribe people in independent states who through their own social, cultural and economical relationships, separates themselves from other parts of the national community, and whose status wholly or partially are regulated by their own customs and traditions, especially by special laws or regulations and this is exactly the lack of respect i was talking about. this definition requires an empire, an oppression. it requires the indigenous people to be the underdog, a part of another nation. but once they achieve independence, once they become fully self determining - they lose the indigenous status. their customs become the dominant ones, so they cannot be separate from a national community - they are the national community. indigenous is not and cannot be synonymous to ethnic minority. the fact that it is being presented as such is a result of concrete political agenda.
I disagree. The Sami in my country have their own parliament - they partake in both Norwegian society, and also within their own culture and traditions.
The Sami parliament acts as a way for them to have cultural autonomy. It’s responsible for such things as the development of their languages, responsibility for the culture, protection for cultural heritage, and a few other things.
They don’t consider themselves to be only Sami, they’re Sami and Norwegian. Being a minority group doesn’t mean you have to be oppressed you know. I wouldn’t say the Sami are oppressed in Norway today - but they certainly have been in the past, with their cultural artefacts being destroyed, their children physically punished at school if they spoke Saami and so on. Ironically, during the period of Norwegianization in which this was occurring, more and more Sami stopped identifying as Norwegian - while before this policy, and after, more of them also identify as Norwegian.
The Sami has no interest in getting a piece of land for 50k people and be independent of Norway, as the majority of them consider themselves Norwegian as well as Sami.
It hasn’t even been implied that indigenous people is synonymous with ethnic minority. I mean, I don’t know how you could come to that conclusion at all reading the definition I gave you. (Though I do suspect that there’s some ethnic minorities who isn’t indigenous people mixed in on that map though)
then what exactly is it that makes the Sami indigenous, but prevents Norwegians from being considered such? because to me, once again, it seems to be the dynamic of power, with the Norwegians being the dominant force of the country, and the Sami being the weaker part. And I’m still curious about the Irish, the Cornish, the Manx, the Welsh in Britain - why are they not indigenous?
Lemme bring up both definitions, and I’ll highlight the parts that doesn’t fit Norwegians.
“A tribe people in independent states who through their own social, cultural and economical relationships, separates themselves from other parts of the national community, and whose status wholly or partially are regulated by their own customs and traditions, especially by special laws or regulations”
The other definition is:
“People in independent states who are considered original because they descend from the people who lived in the country, or a geographic region which the country belongs, in the moment in time when the conquering or colonisation happened or the current state lines were established and whom, independently of their legal position, has kept some or all of their own social, economical, cultural and political institutions.”
The first part of the second definition both counts and doesn’t count for Norwegians - it counts for Norwegians in the southern part, but the northern part was Sami territory which Norwegians took over. It’s also a bit complicated as Norway itself wasn’t independent from 1397 until 1905, so you could argue the country was conquered, and therefore Norwegians as a whole fit the first part of the second definition.
If, hypothetically, during the Christianisation of Norway, there has been a subsection of Norwegians who had kept to the old faith and the old customs that has endured to this day, you could make the argument that group of Norwegians were an Indigineous people, I think, since they would have fit into both definitions.
The minorities in Britain, as far as I’m aware doesn’t fit the first definition at all, unless you want to make an argument that Scottish clans were tribes, and while they certainly fit parts of the second definition, I don’t think they fit the latter part, though feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken.
In some ways, I’d say that the indigenous people are the most successful ethnic minorities- culturally that is. The difference between the two is that ethnic minorities are either, recent immigrants to that region, or an ethnic minority that has lost their culture and customs almost entirely, essentially cases where they’ve been entirely integrated by the majority group. Victims of a successful cultural genocide, if you will. And that is very much the case for a large portion of Europe, even its majority ethnic groups, during the time when a lot of countries were forced to become Christian.
and doesnt it strike you as patronizing? saying that a people can only be indigenous if theyre a tribe (which sounds a lot like a politically correct euphemism for “backward savage”) - a people that have not developed a certain national/cultural cohesion on a territorial scale? also, once again - were the Sami to declare and succesfully attain independence from Norway, would they be refused the indigenous status? certainly, the first definition would no longer apply to them? how do you even define tribal traits in the 21st century? how do you measure the centralization of power before conquest to estabilish what is a tribe and what isnt? if a tribe appoints a king, can they be still considered a tribe? where is the boundary between tribe and state? also, why are victims of cultural genocide excluded from indigenous status? that seems unfair to them i agree that within the confines of the definitions you provided the application or revocation of the term 'indigenous’ fits the logic of said definition - but doesnt stop me from questioning, why these definitions are written in the way that they are. it goes against the well estabilished meaning of the word. it has a somewhat american (or “colonial”)-centric use. there the division between indigenous and settler population is clear, but in europe, where colonial-style settlement never occured, this concept leaves much to be desired
I think that’s part of why there’s two definitions - as far as I understand it you don’t have to fit both definitions, just one of them. So not really patronising at all - as said if, theoretically, a subsection of Norwegians had kept to their old ways, they’d fit definition one, as vikings lived in tribes.
Independence from the country they live in? Also Sami live in in three other countries (obviously there’s Sami all over the world but you get what I mean). There’s also several tribes of Sami, and there’s currently nine different Sami languages still in use today. The swedes living in Norway might as well try and declare their independence, like I don’t see how that’s feasible. Especially as they’re also Norwegian/Swedish/Finish/Russian, not just Sami.
I’m not too familiar with Sami tribes, but they were nomads, and a tribe usually consisted of five - six families living and travelling together. Don’t know much beyond that.
Quite sure a tribe electing a king, would be a chieftain. Don’t think just changing the title to king would change much to be honest. Boundary between tribe and state would be amount of people I’d wager, probably also something about how the hierarchy is made up, and certain cultural norms, though I’m really not knowledgable to give more than rather vague guesswork on the matter.
As for why a native minority doesn’t necessarily have indigenous status if their culture and such has been mostly erased - because they don’t need it. The classification is used to give certain legal protections and help in maintaining and protecting important cultural sites, their language, customs, in some cases way of life, and so on. You can make the argument that the definition is too restrictive and therefore excludes people who need these kinds of protections and help however.
Oh I think it’s a pretty interesting discussion to have! So keep questioning and I’ll do my best to reason it out with you :D
I’d hardly call it American-centric, as it’s a definition made in Norway in 1990. It’s a lot more Sami-focused than anything else to be fair, as that was the political issue being focused on at the time. I think the aspect of colonialism was added to be inclusive of indigenous people elsewhere - since it doesn’t exactly fit into the history of the Sami. The definition was in large part codified into law, as I understand it, to help grant them legal protections. Also it’s funny you should say it’s Americanised - the original definition taken from the UN that it was based on, was criticised for not really fitting the European experience with its indigenous peoples, therefore it was changed and Norway took to use these two definitions.
As for the Sami being colonised or not; it’s a rather complicated thing, it’s hard to say exactly when the Sami settled in north Norway; and the Sami had good relations with the Viking’s and Norwegians in general, until the early 1700s where they were being forced to concert to Christianity, and having their own sacred artefacts burned; such as their shamanic drums. And it got especially bad during the 20th century. The north was in the past Sami-lands, and the Norwegians spread further north, but it wasn’t like a battle took place or anything and the Sami were conquered and forced under Norwegian rule at the time - the two people lived side by side.
The World’s Indigenous Peoples
This map by @bhabna_ uses data from the Indigenous World 2022 report to show the population distribution of the roughly 476 million Indigenous peoples around the world.
by @VisualCap
interesting that certain countries aren’t portrayed as having any indigenous people.
Wonder why that is
Saying “there are no indigenous people in germany” is equal to “the germans have no right to germany”. it’s not just a silly map, its a normalization of very dangerous ideas
That is because indigenous people doesn’t just mean indigenous to the region.
It’s a stupid name, because it certainly gives off the completely wrong idea to what it means.
So yes, Germans are indigenous to Germany, but they are not an Indigenous People, just like Han Chinese are indigenous to a region in Northern China, but they’re not an Indigenous People; because neither group fits the definition.
The picture posted above says: “Indigenous Peoples” has no official definition by the UN (…) Instead, organizations utilize a modern understanding of traits including: - self identification -historical continuity with pre-settler societies -distinct systems and culture -and a commitment to preserve heritage and environments. for one, i would like to ask what “modern understanding” means. but more importantly, i would like to ask why such an important (and intuitive) term has no definition. this elasticity allows for manipulation. on the surface, the mention of “pre-settler” societies seems to exclude europe from the idea of being indigenous to some area (which, once again, why would you allow for such glaring and obvious mistake?). but let me ask - how is “pre - settler” defined? is there a time period to which it is limited? it can mean 19th centure just as much as 5th? does roman colonization count? do the Irish or Scottish not count? they have been colonized by the english after all. outside of this trait, do european nations not fit the criteria? there is an unspoken, disrespectful caveat to this “modern” definition. not disrespectful to the nations who are omitted - but the peoples who are considered indigenous. it’s a word that functionally is a modern translation of ‘savage’ or ‘primitive’. of ‘unable to create political structures’. a euphemism of ‘non-white’. they are patronizingly praised for ‘commitment to preserve heritage and environment’, as if the functioning states of european nation-states do not do so in a procedural and effective manner. imprecise concepts in highly influential and polarizing subjects do not exist as an overlooking. they exist specifically to cause polarization and possibly, enable political gain. if there is no definition, the designation of a people as 'indigenous’ is entirely arbitrary, subject to political need. the infographic says this itself - the reason why there is no definition of 'indigenous’ is because of 'diverse identities and histories’. that means, indirectly, that if any precise definition were to be instituted, many nations considered to be indigenous would have to be refused that status. because their history would have to be examined and verified, their right to claim the status would have to be tested. and like with the massive bantu migrations in africa, many indigenous peoples would turn out to be conquerors and colonizers in sheeps clothes. if you have to reinvent what basic wording mean to make your system work, perhaps the system isnt very sound in the first place.
To answer a large portion of this, let me just copy paste first something I wrote on another re log of this post:
This is why our classification makes more sense. We don’t talk about indigenous people, we talk about “urfolk” - meaning “ancient people”, which is defined in two ways. One of them is pretty much the same as in English, being a people that lived in a geographical location before the conquering or colonisation of that area, and who has kept some or all of their own social, economical, cultural and political institutions.
“A tribe people in independent states who through their own social, cultural and economical relationships, separates themselves from other parts of the national community, and whose status wholly or partially are regulated by their own customs and traditions, especially by special laws or regulations”
There is a clear definition to us what Indigenous People mean, and that’s why I don’t really like the English terminology, because it’s downright misleading to what it actually means.
As @alaija pointed out in her reblog, the Maori are considered Indigenous despite not having been in New Zealand for 700 years yet, but the Japanese aren’t considered as such despite being in Japan for 2 - 3 thousand years. And that is because they fit the before-mentioned definitions.
>A tribe people in independent states who through their own social, cultural and economical relationships, separates themselves from other parts of the national community, and whose status wholly or partially are regulated by their own customs and traditions, especially by special laws or regulations and this is exactly the lack of respect i was talking about. this definition requires an empire, an oppression. it requires the indigenous people to be the underdog, a part of another nation. but once they achieve independence, once they become fully self determining - they lose the indigenous status. their customs become the dominant ones, so they cannot be separate from a national community - they are the national community. indigenous is not and cannot be synonymous to ethnic minority. the fact that it is being presented as such is a result of concrete political agenda.
I disagree. The Sami in my country have their own parliament - they partake in both Norwegian society, and also within their own culture and traditions.
The Sami parliament acts as a way for them to have cultural autonomy. It’s responsible for such things as the development of their languages, responsibility for the culture, protection for cultural heritage, and a few other things.
They don’t consider themselves to be only Sami, they’re Sami and Norwegian. Being a minority group doesn’t mean you have to be oppressed you know. I wouldn’t say the Sami are oppressed in Norway today - but they certainly have been in the past, with their cultural artefacts being destroyed, their children physically punished at school if they spoke Saami and so on. Ironically, during the period of Norwegianization in which this was occurring, more and more Sami stopped identifying as Norwegian - while before this policy, and after, more of them also identify as Norwegian.
The Sami has no interest in getting a piece of land for 50k people and be independent of Norway, as the majority of them consider themselves Norwegian as well as Sami.
It hasn’t even been implied that indigenous people is synonymous with ethnic minority. I mean, I don’t know how you could come to that conclusion at all reading the definition I gave you. (Though I do suspect that there’s some ethnic minorities who isn’t indigenous people mixed in on that map though)
then what exactly is it that makes the Sami indigenous, but prevents Norwegians from being considered such? because to me, once again, it seems to be the dynamic of power, with the Norwegians being the dominant force of the country, and the Sami being the weaker part. And I’m still curious about the Irish, the Cornish, the Manx, the Welsh in Britain - why are they not indigenous?
Lemme bring up both definitions, and I’ll highlight the parts that doesn’t fit Norwegians.
“A tribe people in independent states who through their own social, cultural and economical relationships, separates themselves from other parts of the national community, and whose status wholly or partially are regulated by their own customs and traditions, especially by special laws or regulations”
The other definition is:
“People in independent states who are considered original because they descend from the people who lived in the country, or a geographic region which the country belongs, in the moment in time when the conquering or colonisation happened or the current state lines were established and whom, independently of their legal position, has kept some or all of their own social, economical, cultural and political institutions.”
The first part of the second definition both counts and doesn’t count for Norwegians - it counts for Norwegians in the southern part, but the northern part was Sami territory which Norwegians took over. It’s also a bit complicated as Norway itself wasn’t independent from 1397 until 1905, so you could argue the country was conquered, and therefore Norwegians as a whole fit the first part of the second definition.
If, hypothetically, during the Christianisation of Norway, there has been a subsection of Norwegians who had kept to the old faith and the old customs that has endured to this day, you could make the argument that group of Norwegians were an Indigineous people, I think, since they would have fit into both definitions.
The minorities in Britain, as far as I’m aware doesn’t fit the first definition at all, unless you want to make an argument that Scottish clans were tribes, and while they certainly fit parts of the second definition, I don’t think they fit the latter part, though feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken.
In some ways, I’d say that the indigenous people are the most successful ethnic minorities- culturally that is. The difference between the two is that ethnic minorities are either, recent immigrants to that region, or an ethnic minority that has lost their culture and customs almost entirely, essentially cases where they’ve been entirely integrated by the majority group. Victims of a successful cultural genocide, if you will. And that is very much the case for a large portion of Europe, even its majority ethnic groups, during the time when a lot of countries were forced to become Christian.
The World’s Indigenous Peoples
This map by @bhabna_ uses data from the Indigenous World 2022 report to show the population distribution of the roughly 476 million Indigenous peoples around the world.
by @VisualCap
interesting that certain countries aren’t portrayed as having any indigenous people.
Wonder why that is
Saying “there are no indigenous people in germany” is equal to “the germans have no right to germany”. it’s not just a silly map, its a normalization of very dangerous ideas
That is because indigenous people doesn’t just mean indigenous to the region.
It’s a stupid name, because it certainly gives off the completely wrong idea to what it means.
So yes, Germans are indigenous to Germany, but they are not an Indigenous People, just like Han Chinese are indigenous to a region in Northern China, but they’re not an Indigenous People; because neither group fits the definition.
The picture posted above says: “Indigenous Peoples” has no official definition by the UN (…) Instead, organizations utilize a modern understanding of traits including: - self identification -historical continuity with pre-settler societies -distinct systems and culture -and a commitment to preserve heritage and environments. for one, i would like to ask what “modern understanding” means. but more importantly, i would like to ask why such an important (and intuitive) term has no definition. this elasticity allows for manipulation. on the surface, the mention of “pre-settler” societies seems to exclude europe from the idea of being indigenous to some area (which, once again, why would you allow for such glaring and obvious mistake?). but let me ask - how is “pre - settler” defined? is there a time period to which it is limited? it can mean 19th centure just as much as 5th? does roman colonization count? do the Irish or Scottish not count? they have been colonized by the english after all. outside of this trait, do european nations not fit the criteria? there is an unspoken, disrespectful caveat to this “modern” definition. not disrespectful to the nations who are omitted - but the peoples who are considered indigenous. it’s a word that functionally is a modern translation of ‘savage’ or ‘primitive’. of ‘unable to create political structures’. a euphemism of 'non-white’. they are patronizingly praised for 'commitment to preserve heritage and environment’, as if the functioning states of european nation-states do not do so in a procedural and effective manner. imprecise concepts in highly influential and polarizing subjects do not exist as an overlooking. they exist specifically to cause polarization and possibly, enable political gain. if there is no definition, the designation of a people as 'indigenous’ is entirely arbitrary, subject to political need. the infographic says this itself - the reason why there is no definition of 'indigenous’ is because of 'diverse identities and histories’. that means, indirectly, that if any precise definition were to be instituted, many nations considered to be indigenous would have to be refused that status. because their history would have to be examined and verified, their right to claim the status would have to be tested. and like with the massive bantu migrations in africa, many indigenous peoples would turn out to be conquerors and colonizers in sheeps clothes. if you have to reinvent what basic wording mean to make your system work, perhaps the system isnt very sound in the first place.
To answer a large portion of this, let me just copy paste first something I wrote on another re log of this post:
This is why our classification makes more sense. We don’t talk about indigenous people, we talk about “urfolk” - meaning “ancient people”, which is defined in two ways. One of them is pretty much the same as in English, being a people that lived in a geographical location before the conquering or colonisation of that area, and who has kept some or all of their own social, economical, cultural and political institutions.
“A tribe people in independent states who through their own social, cultural and economical relationships, separates themselves from other parts of the national community, and whose status wholly or partially are regulated by their own customs and traditions, especially by special laws or regulations”
There is a clear definition to us what Indigenous People mean, and that’s why I don’t really like the English terminology, because it’s downright misleading to what it actually means.
As @alaija pointed out in her reblog, the Maori are considered Indigenous despite not having been in New Zealand for 700 years yet, but the Japanese aren’t considered as such despite being in Japan for 2 - 3 thousand years. And that is because they fit the before-mentioned definitions.
>A tribe people in independent states who through their own social, cultural and economical relationships, separates themselves from other parts of the national community, and whose status wholly or partially are regulated by their own customs and traditions, especially by special laws or regulations and this is exactly the lack of respect i was talking about. this definition requires an empire, an oppression. it requires the indigenous people to be the underdog, a part of another nation. but once they achieve independence, once they become fully self determining - they lose the indigenous status. their customs become the dominant ones, so they cannot be separate from a national community - they are the national community. indigenous is not and cannot be synonymous to ethnic minority. the fact that it is being presented as such is a result of concrete political agenda.
I disagree. The Sami in my country have their own parliament - they partake in both Norwegian society, and also within their own culture and traditions.
The Sami parliament acts as a way for them to have cultural autonomy. It’s responsible for such things as the development of their languages, responsibility for the culture, protection for cultural heritage, and a few other things.
They don’t consider themselves to be only Sami, they’re Sami and Norwegian. Being a minority group doesn’t mean you have to be oppressed you know. I wouldn’t say the Sami are oppressed in Norway today - but they certainly have been in the past, with their cultural artefacts being destroyed, their children physically punished at school if they spoke Saami and so on. Ironically, during the period of Norwegianization in which this was occurring, more and more Sami stopped identifying as Norwegian - while before this policy, and after, more of them also identify as Norwegian.
The Sami has no interest in getting a piece of land for 50k people and be independent of Norway, as the majority of them consider themselves Norwegian as well as Sami.
It hasn’t even been implied that indigenous people is synonymous with ethnic minority. I mean, I don’t know how you could come to that conclusion at all reading the definition I gave you. (Though I do suspect that there’s some ethnic minorities who isn’t indigenous people mixed in on that map though)
The World’s Indigenous Peoples
This map by @bhabna_ uses data from the Indigenous World 2022 report to show the population distribution of the roughly 476 million Indigenous peoples around the world.
by @VisualCap
interesting that certain countries aren’t portrayed as having any indigenous people.
Wonder why that is
Couldn’t be because they hate certain skin colors or countries there, or anything.
I’ll give a non-european example.
Egypt: Says there aren’t any indigenous people but I’m pretty sure the millions of Copts had ancestors who lived there far before the Arabs showed up. They built the Pyramids after all.
Yo, where are the Kurds in Turkey?
This map mixes indigenous with national minorities and accurately represents neither
For example Slovakia is marked on the map. Now the only possible ethnic group you could xo sider there are the Rusyn …. thing isy thet even if Ukraine never recognized them as an ethnic grouo, a lot of Rusyn live in the west of Ukraine.
Next. If you gonna mark the Rusyn yous hould also marl the Moravinas in neighbouring Czechia, Lemks in poland, Sorbs in germany, Welsh, Cornish, Irish, Manx and Scots in the UK, Sards of Sicily…..
Also …thereare no Caribean nations marked … did the map maker forget the taino people exist?
If you look at the top of the map, there is noted that there is little to no data on a number of Indigenous people in Europe, apart from the Sami.
Also Scots, Welsh, Irish, Manx and Cornish are not an Indigenous people - indigenous people doesn’t just mean that they’re native to the area; it has a specific definition, and none of those groups fits that definition.
I’ll admit I don’t know enough about the Eastern European groups to remark on them, but if they’re an indigenous people, they might be one of the European ones where there’s no recent enough data, same for the Caribbean ones.
That’s my point! Rusyn are included, they have been in the area as long as slovaks or Ukranians and 1. They aren’t included in ukrsine and 2. An actually indigenous people like Taino are not included.
From what I can find with a quick search, which is not necessarily accurate, the Rusyn aren’t indigenous, just a minority ethnic group? Am I understanding correctly?
I actually can’t find anything by searching for an indigenous people living in Slovakia on Google, at least not in English xD
The World’s Indigenous Peoples
This map by @bhabna_ uses data from the Indigenous World 2022 report to show the population distribution of the roughly 476 million Indigenous peoples around the world.
by @VisualCap
interesting that certain countries aren’t portrayed as having any indigenous people.
Wonder why that is
Saying “there are no indigenous people in germany” is equal to “the germans have no right to germany”. it’s not just a silly map, its a normalization of very dangerous ideas
That is because indigenous people doesn’t just mean indigenous to the region.
It’s a stupid name, because it certainly gives off the completely wrong idea to what it means.
So yes, Germans are indigenous to Germany, but they are not an Indigenous People, just like Han Chinese are indigenous to a region in Northern China, but they’re not an Indigenous People; because neither group fits the definition.
The picture posted above says: “Indigenous Peoples” has no official definition by the UN (…) Instead, organizations utilize a modern understanding of traits including: - self identification -historical continuity with pre-settler societies -distinct systems and culture -and a commitment to preserve heritage and environments. for one, i would like to ask what “modern understanding” means. but more importantly, i would like to ask why such an important (and intuitive) term has no definition. this elasticity allows for manipulation. on the surface, the mention of “pre-settler” societies seems to exclude europe from the idea of being indigenous to some area (which, once again, why would you allow for such glaring and obvious mistake?). but let me ask - how is “pre - settler” defined? is there a time period to which it is limited? it can mean 19th centure just as much as 5th? does roman colonization count? do the Irish or Scottish not count? they have been colonized by the english after all. outside of this trait, do european nations not fit the criteria? there is an unspoken, disrespectful caveat to this “modern” definition. not disrespectful to the nations who are omitted - but the peoples who are considered indigenous. it’s a word that functionally is a modern translation of ‘savage’ or 'primitive’. of 'unable to create political structures’. a euphemism of 'non-white’. they are patronizingly praised for 'commitment to preserve heritage and environment’, as if the functioning states of european nation-states do not do so in a procedural and effective manner. imprecise concepts in highly influential and polarizing subjects do not exist as an overlooking. they exist specifically to cause polarization and possibly, enable political gain. if there is no definition, the designation of a people as 'indigenous’ is entirely arbitrary, subject to political need. the infographic says this itself - the reason why there is no definition of 'indigenous’ is because of 'diverse identities and histories’. that means, indirectly, that if any precise definition were to be instituted, many nations considered to be indigenous would have to be refused that status. because their history would have to be examined and verified, their right to claim the status would have to be tested. and like with the massive bantu migrations in africa, many indigenous peoples would turn out to be conquerors and colonizers in sheeps clothes. if you have to reinvent what basic wording mean to make your system work, perhaps the system isnt very sound in the first place.
To answer a large portion of this, let me just copy paste first something I wrote on another re log of this post:
This is why our classification makes more sense. We don’t talk about indigenous people, we talk about “urfolk” - meaning “ancient people”, which is defined in two ways. One of them is pretty much the same as in English, being a people that lived in a geographical location before the conquering or colonisation of that area, and who has kept some or all of their own social, economical, cultural and political institutions.
“A tribe people in independent states who through their own social, cultural and economical relationships, separates themselves from other parts of the national community, and whose status wholly or partially are regulated by their own customs and traditions, especially by special laws or regulations”
There is a clear definition to us what Indigenous People mean, and that’s why I don’t really like the English terminology, because it’s downright misleading to what it actually means.
As @alaija pointed out in her reblog, the Maori are considered Indigenous despite not having been in New Zealand for 700 years yet, but the Japanese aren’t considered as such despite being in Japan for 2 - 3 thousand years. And that is because they fit the before-mentioned definitions.
The World’s Indigenous Peoples
This map by @bhabna_ uses data from the Indigenous World 2022 report to show the population distribution of the roughly 476 million Indigenous peoples around the world.
by @VisualCap
interesting that certain countries aren’t portrayed as having any indigenous people.
Wonder why that is
Couldn’t be because they hate certain skin colors or countries there, or anything.
I’ll give a non-european example.
Egypt: Says there aren’t any indigenous people but I’m pretty sure the millions of Copts had ancestors who lived there far before the Arabs showed up. They built the Pyramids after all.
Yo, where are the Kurds in Turkey?
This map mixes indigenous with national minorities and accurately represents neither
For example Slovakia is marked on the map. Now the only possible ethnic group you could xo sider there are the Rusyn …. thing isy thet even if Ukraine never recognized them as an ethnic grouo, a lot of Rusyn live in the west of Ukraine.
Next. If you gonna mark the Rusyn yous hould also marl the Moravinas in neighbouring Czechia, Lemks in poland, Sorbs in germany, Welsh, Cornish, Irish, Manx and Scots in the UK, Sards of Sicily…..
Also …thereare no Caribean nations marked … did the map maker forget the taino people exist?
If you look at the top of the map, there is noted that there is little to no data on a number of Indigenous people in Europe, apart from the Sami.
Also Scots, Welsh, Irish, Manx and Cornish are not an Indigenous people - indigenous people doesn’t just mean that they’re native to the area; it has a specific definition, and none of those groups fits that definition.
I’ll admit I don’t know enough about the Eastern European groups to remark on them, but if they’re an indigenous people, they might be one of the European ones where there’s no recent enough data, same for the Caribbean ones.
The World’s Indigenous Peoples
This map by @bhabna_ uses data from the Indigenous World 2022 report to show the population distribution of the roughly 476 million Indigenous peoples around the world.
by @VisualCap
interesting that certain countries aren’t portrayed as having any indigenous people.
Wonder why that is
Saying “there are no indigenous people in germany” is equal to “the germans have no right to germany”. it’s not just a silly map, its a normalization of very dangerous ideas
That is because indigenous people doesn’t just mean indigenous to the region.
It’s a stupid name, because it certainly gives off the completely wrong idea to what it means.
So yes, Germans are indigenous to Germany, but they are not an Indigenous People, just like Han Chinese are indigenous to a region in Northern China, but they’re not an Indigenous People; because neither group fits the definition.
The World’s Indigenous Peoples
This map by @bhabna_ uses data from the Indigenous World 2022 report to show the population distribution of the roughly 476 million Indigenous peoples around the world.
by @VisualCap
interesting that certain countries aren’t portrayed as having any indigenous people.
Wonder why that is
Couldn’t be because they hate certain skin colors or countries there, or anything.
I’ll give a non-european example.
Egypt: Says there aren’t any indigenous people but I’m pretty sure the millions of Copts had ancestors who lived there far before the Arabs showed up. They built the Pyramids after all.
Look at Scandinavia. The cretins that made this map claim Crimean Tartars are indigenous to Scandinavia.
You’re misreading it, they’re not claiming that the Crimean Tartars (indigenous to Crimea) or the Basques (indigenous to the Basque county) are indigenous to Scandinavia.
They’re saying that the Sami, indigenous to Scandinavia (and parts of Russia) have recent data, and unlike them, other European indigenous groups such as the Basques and the Crimean Tartars doesn’t.
The World’s Indigenous Peoples
This map by @bhabna_ uses data from the Indigenous World 2022 report to show the population distribution of the roughly 476 million Indigenous peoples around the world.
by @VisualCap
interesting that certain countries aren’t portrayed as having any indigenous people.
Wonder why that is
Couldn’t be because they hate certain skin colors or countries there, or anything.
I’ll give a non-european example.
Egypt: Says there aren’t any indigenous people but I’m pretty sure the millions of Copts had ancestors who lived there far before the Arabs showed up. They built the Pyramids after all.
This is why our classification makes more sense. We don’t talk about indigenous people, we talk about “urfolk” - meaning “ancient people”, which is defined in two ways. One of them is pretty much the same as in English, being a people that lived in a geographical location before the conquering or colonisation of that area, and who has kept some or all of their own social, economical, cultural and political institutions.
The second definition, is as follows (sorry for clumsy translation):
“A tribe people in independent states who through their own social, cultural and economical relationships, separates themselves from other parts of the national community, and whose status wholly or partially are regulated by their own customs and traditions, especially by special laws or regulations”.
And in original Norwegian: “stammefolk i selvstendige stater som gjennom sine sosiale, kulturelle og økonomiske forhold skiller seg fra andre deler av det nasjonale fellesskap, og hvis status helt eller delvis er regulert av deres egne skikker og tradisjoner, eller av særlige lover eller forskrifter”
By these definitions, classifying some people indigenous to a region as an indigenous people, while not classifying other people indigenous to a region as such makes a lot more sense. Which is why I think “indigenous people” is kind of a silly name - because it doesn’t just mean indigenous to a region, so it’s pretty misleading.
