Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:02:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 19:48:
I thought your "point" made more sense when you were arguing that technically no peoples are indigenous... Not an important or useful point by any means when discussing indigenous peoples as the word is used in both academic and common parlance... but still something that's technically right in the most obtuse, semantic argument kind of way.

But now that you've shifted it to some arbitrary year instead...
And saying that you use these semantic arguments to push back against pushes for indigenous rights... it almost seems worse than Cutter's nonsense.

That's still my point. There are no "indigenous" modern humans because of how we behave as a species and have always behaved.

I think "indigenous rights" are counterproductive and utterly pointless. What we, as a species, should be focusing on is universal human rights. We're all part of the same damn species. End of story. That we stupidly divide by phenotype is also counterproductive and utterly pointless. Oh you have dark hair and dark eyes? Great. You get the same rights and protections as Blondey McBlondeface over there.

The 2000BCE was not arbitrary. Far from it. It was the last year that I could remember that evidence of any member of a hominid species other than Homo Sapiens existed as part of the Homo branch. Any newer than that and they disappear, supplanted by modern humans. The very same constantly migrating species that has filled every continent but Antarctica at this point.