Airliners.net

NZ was one of the last countries to be inhabited by people, Maori arrived sometime around 1250, Maori are considered indigenous to NZ, my question is could the decendants of the Bounty mutineers on Pitcairn Island also be considered indigenous, the island was uninhabited when they arrived, just like NZ was, Maori are considered indigenous so why aren't Pitcairn Islanders given the same status. Using the same reasoning the current inhabitants of the Faulkland Islands could also be considered indigenous.

Any thoughts.

Kiwirob wrote:

NZ was one of the last countries to be inhabited by people, Maori arrived sometime around 1250, Maori are considered indigenous to NZ, my question is could the decendants of the Bounty mutineers on Pitcairn Island also be considered indigenous, the island was uninhabited when they arrived, just like NZ was, Maori are considered indigenous so why aren't Pitcairn Islanders given the same status. Using the same reasoning the current inhabitants of the Faulkland Islands could also be considered indigenous.

Any thoughts.

The Pitcairn Islanders have never really been indigenous. There is a lot of crossbreeding with the outside world at various points, and as the population increases, they always outgrow their resources and then part of the population leaves the island.

The same could also be said of the Maori people, there are very few if any who would be 100% Maori, Maori and non Maori interbred right from the start.

So what about Falkland islanders? They must have some claim?

Kiwirob wrote:

The same could also be said of the Maori people, there are very few if any who would be 100% Maori, Maori and non Maori interbred right from the start.

So what about Falkland islanders? They must have some claim?

The difference with the Maori, is that they had a relatively longtime(generations) of being isolated, and not dependent on the outside word. The Pitcairn and Falkand islanders have never had that. Ther customs and culture were and are constantly influenced by the outside world.

Juat because the Maori were isolated it doesn't really make their status any different from my other examples. Maori arrived in several waves of immigration from the Polynesia which lasted a couple of hundred years. There are also claims, yet to be confirmed that there were already other people in NZ when the first canoes arrived. Maori oral history confirms this.

There's other examples as well, what makes a Sami any more indeginous to the Scandinavian area than ethnic Nordic people like my wife whose ancestors have lived in Scandinavia for thousands of years.

Kiwirob wrote:

Juat because the Maori were isolated it doesn't really make their status any different from my other examples. Maori arrived in several waves of immigration from the Polynesia which lasted a couple of hundred years.

Whether or not to consider a group as indigenous to an area is, of course, a matter of definitions and academic/intellectual perspectives.

It seems to me that according to your view, we can never describe any group as being indigenous.

In North America we refer to the earliest known peoples as first nations, native Americans, original inhabitants or indigenes.

We have a very good idea of where they came from, but we know quite imperfectly precisely when the very first of them arrived.

The matter is not without controversy.