> implies there is a statute of limitations on being indigenous.

Is there not? I’m pretty sure every tribe that’s considered indigenous now at any place has replaced some other group that lived there before them.

▲

defrost 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not clear, and unlikely in Australia.

* https://mgnsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/map_col_high...

* https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-09-22/world-first-s...

This recent genetic based view replaces the "gut feeling" view akin to yours that was long pushed by Quadrant et al.

▲

echoangle 2 hours ago | parent [-]

But surely, the different tribes in Australia also moved around and replaced each other? They might all come from the same people that came to Australia first, but that doesn’t mean they are native to the place they currently live in. If a tribe moved from southern Australia to the north and replaced another tribe, who gets the land now? And how do you settle that without some arbitrary statute of limitations?

	▲	defrost 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> But surely, the different tribes in Australia also moved around and replaced each other? Read article, chase up the papers, evidence says "no". The Tasmanians and the Noongars (Southern most to east, southern most to west) have genetically been in place a long time and had no one to replace. The article mentions "genetic diversity" between east, west, centre, north, south, etc - that comes from not mixing. "But surely..." <-- gut feelings? You should joinn Quadrant. > If a tribe moved from southern Australia to the north and replaced another tribe Do you have any evidence of that? > who gets the land now? There's a wealth of material on Mabo, Land rights, Native title, et al that address all that - if you're generally curious it's there to read. eg: starting with, say https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/mabo-case

▲

slg 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you take the view of history that the ability to forcibly drive other people off their land grants the new inhabitants a valid claim to that land, then Israel's actions are only objectionable because they are happening now rather than in the history books. It's inherently a doctrine of might is right, and the Israelis are mightier than the Palestinians at this current moment in history.

▲

echoangle 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Right, but at least historically, what alternative is there? You can’t really unroll thousands of years of human history and make everyone go back to where their ancestors came from (even just because people ended up mixing after colonizing other places), so you have to take some state as the correct one and then condemn every change after that (or just let everyone do whatever they want).

Otherwise, how would you decide who gets which part of the world?

	▲	slg 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Which is exactly why this area has been in conflict for millennia. Many different groups have valid claims to the area being their historic homeland. Dubbing one single group as "indigenous" is a refutation of all the other people's historical claims on that land and it means all the Israelis have to do is wait out this conflict until it becomes "history" and the Palestinians lose that "indigenous" label.