h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've seen the term 'indigenous' used in relation to the UK alot lately. I'm curious to know what people mean by that term, as it is being used in different ways than I'm used to on this side of the world (New Zealand).

I'm not sure that there are any true indigenes left in Britain, we are a mongrel nation.

There's a lot of arguing and hair-splitting, but it basically means white.

If it means white then a white Italian would be indigenous to the UK, which is obviously not true.

The whole "indigenous = white" thing is a load of cobblers used by racist organisations like Stormfront and The Anglo-Saxon Association to try and deny the lack of actual indigenous blood left in this country.

You have to take the term "indigenous" in context. Generally we hear it in arguments about Muslims and Blacks. When used in those terms, it means white. The hair-splitting comes in when people bring up Saxons, Normans, Celts and Vikings. This is just a disruptive tactic to turn a discussion on immigration/religion into a racism debate.

I am using the term indigenous in context. In the only context it can be used which is summed up nicely using this definition:
Indigenous - adj.
Originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment.

There is the Ancient Human Occupation of Britain project. But I guess that might not be it. I guess indigenous is what you could also call "ethnic english".
There are people who are classed as indigenous that haven´t been around for that long either. I think the Hawaiians are supposed to only have come to Hawaii about a 1000 years ago.

The key word there being, of course, 'originating'.

Mr D. are you saying that the places where the term 'indigenous' is used most in the UK is by racists? In that case, it's time the word was reclaimed.


'Indigenous' as applied to people has a broader meaning than the strict evolutionary biology one. It has a cultural meaning of first peoples who are connected to that land. So Maori peoples, most of whom immigrated here 1,000 years ago are considered indigenous to NZ (despite not having evolved here which would be the more scientific definition).

In that sense I don't have a problem with the idea of indigenous Brits despite the fact that there have been successive waves of immigration. Indigneous peoples usually are the ones with the responsibility for the land, and for maintaining cultural sovereignty. I can see how racists would use it to their advantage though.

The thing that's really interested me where I've seen the term used on h2 lately is that it seems wholely divorced from the concept of relationship with the land. But it's the relationship with the land that determines the indigeneity i.e. it's about people who belong to a certain place. I don't hear many Brits talk about land in that way.

>>You have to take the term "indigenous" in context. Generally we hear it in arguments about Muslims and Blacks. When used in those terms, it means white.<<

SWL, indigeneity has nothing to do with whiteness. As I already pointed out, if white were the defining criteria then any non-Brit white person who lived in Britain would be indigenous, which is plainly ridiculous.

If you wanted to talk about the indigenous English, you could talk about anglo-saxon culture and ethnicity and the relationship that has had to the British Isles.

Basically yes... the racist groups seem to think that indigenous means "white" and sometimes "Christian" as well. Even if you explain the scientific and historical reasons why they might not be true indigenes (using the term to mean pureblooded descendents of the first people to settle here) they'll respond simply with "but I'm white" (I know this because I've tried).

"I don't hear many Brits talk about land in that way."

Try reading a few James Herriot books.

TRiG.

Sorry TRiG, I was meaning I haven't heard many hootooers talk about the land in that way. I agree it is still in the culture, although I don't know how many Brits see it that way.


Mr. D, I'd be fairly resistant to the idea that pureblood is a criteria. If a people take in others from outside their own ethnicity, which is what generally happens, I don't see how this stops that people being indigenous.

I reckon the best way to undemine the racists is to reclaim the word and use it more accurately, in this case using its cultural meaning.

Indigenous has come to be used as a lazy shorthand, which of course is flawed. Basically, anyone trying to use the term "white", is shouted down as a racist. Hence the use of an alternative term, however flawed.

I dunno if it's a subconscious yearning for an identity by some. Saying "I'm British" has become devalued for many as citizenship is dished out willy-nilly to people for whom this is no more than a piece of paper.

It's all wrapped up in "Britishness", which I personally feel is a state of mind more than anything else.

I use the term 'white' all the time and I don't get shouted down as a racist. Maybe it's something to do with HOW some people use the word

I think this is the challenge for Brits. How to reclaim the right to ethnicity from the BNP brigade. If you're only options are BNP or denial of ethnicity then how can you be in relationship with other peoples if you don't know who you are?

<>

My father did... He was born in Liverpool in 1919, and died in New Zealand in 1974. But he never stopped wanting to go back and was dreadfully homesick, but couldn't return for economic reasons.

>>" It has a cultural meaning of first peoples who are connected to that land."

In one sense, the term is close to an assertion of property rights - something like 'most ancient surviving occupiers'.

For example, had the Maori (or Europeans) turned up and found NZ inhabited, but basically wiped out the previous population and assimilated any leftovers, allowing/causing the previous culture to be forgotten, they could end up thought of as indigenous by people who arrived later.

In a UK context, it's a bit of a vague term - due to the age of occupation and the proximity to mainland Europe, trade and migration has possibly been a continuous process for many thousands of years.
'North European' is about as close as one might get for a general genetic grouping, and that's still a pretty vague term.
However, in terms of culture, someone might have a great deal of recent non-North European inheritance but feel and act perfectly British.

I always kinda take it to be as good a way as any to think of 'Indigenous', as basically anyone born over here, weather second or third or two-hundreth generation but then again I'm an descendant of an illegal imigrant if I go back sufficient generations

I've taken indigenous to mean someone who has been born and raised in the UK rather than the colour of their skin.

Describing the colour of the skin as a way to define the term indignious is dubious at the very least - because there has been a lot of race mixing through the years.

Using the definition that SWL gives, would one define a child born of a British white person, and a British black person?