How long should it take before someone is considered a 'native'

>>71402898
>americans will ever be considered natives

that is like saying if european countries falls to islam, the migrants will eventually become 'natives' to that country

gypsied have been here for 400+ years and still haven't integrated

>>71403092
The settlers won. If Europe "falls to Islam" (it won't) then to the victor the spoils.

>>71402898
It's a bit of flawed concept. I guess you can only really count the first humans on a bit of land but we don't know most of those...supposedly there were people before present abos in Australia. There were people before present Japs and likely people before those people. There were people before "native" americans. It also comes into what space of land are they native to? It's basically impossible to precisely mark down true native peoples.

I am American

>>71403578

so no one has a claim on any specific land?

i dont like that idea

Japan is for Japanese and it was so for 2000 years

>>71402898
the t*rks still hold constantinople so less than 600 years

Prehistory or go home

>>71403092
>>71403166
>>71403578
>>71403681
>imperialist countries desperately trying to defend colonialism

File: SYC7.jpg (200KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1024x681px

Mixing racially.

No blood, no claiming the native identity.

>>71402898
My family has been in my state for 400 years and I identify on the census as ethnically American. I'm not going to consider myself as less of a native than some Injun when my bloodline has been out of Europe since pikemen were still used as military units.

>>71403092
Not really. England, for example, is full of people descended from invaders who came there in the past 1000 years but we consider them "natives". Southern Spain is full of people who conquered the place 800 years ago, but again, they're "natives".

Western Anatolia used to be populated by Greeks until the Turks invaded about 600 years ago, but they're "natives". The definition is incredibly vague.

White Americans are very insecure about this. They know deep in their hearts they will never be native so they make up lies such as:
>my grandma was cherokee
>we are all africans
>muh solutreans
>siberian immigrants

Eventually their dogshit arguments get destroyed and their true feelings come out. They say might makes right but you know it kills them inside to say that otherwise they would not have bothered trying to justify their non-native identities.

>>71404020

So your family is all from Jamestown 1608.

Jamestown had 100ppl. you must be pretty inbred...

>>71403798
all countries go through changes and conquests

>>71404114
because people like you assign some negative trait to being white

>>71404151
Where?

File: Capture.png (52KB, 1095x593px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1095x593px

>>71404020

Pic related

>>71404191

>"White Americans are very insecure about this"
>"trying to justify their non-native identities."

>>71404131
Direct descent, yes. That doesn't mean we never marry out, I'm not sure why you'd assume that.

>>71404114
Nobody needs to justify shit to you

>>71404260
How is non-native a negative? And the insecurity part is true.

>>71404270
I never said anybody did and if they did they would be laughed at.

>>71404270
Because many Americans have this flawd logic

Most dont realise that only 15% of their ancestors are 300 year old colonial ancestors

most blacks have been in America longer than you guys

>>71404361
And none of us would care if you laughed at us.

>>71402898
>How long should it take before someone is considered a 'native' of the land?
There should be a difference between being a native of the land and a native of the nation.

>>71404410
Ok then why are you bothering responding to me?

>>71404414

what does native of a nation mean?

a nation is a construct that can be created or dissolved at any moment

i dont understand you

File: yayoi 300 bce - 250 ce.jpg (4KB, 229x221px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 229x221px

>>71403746
japan hasn't been united until far after. You should know better the history of your own country.

Native status should be a cultural designation imo. If a unique culture developed in an area, the people of it are native to that area. With the exception of some of East Africa, every country was ultimately populated by migrants, so I don't think that fact that some migration waves predate written history should confer nativeness.

How this applies to Americans is unclear. I think for the most part we're still a patchwork of immigrant influences, but you might call some of the synthesis a native culture, I don't know.

>>71404605
by 1200 Japan was Japanese except for Hokkaido, but who cares about that other than snow

>>71404690
>How this applies to Americans is unclear. I think for the most part we're still a patchwork of immigrant influences, but you might call some of the synthesis a native culture, I don't know.

I think we definitely have a native culture. It's English culture, majority Protestant, pro-classical liberalism, with strong German/Italian/Irish influences. This whole "patchwork melting pot" thing gets heavily exaggerated.

>>71404690

America should be Multicultural

its too late so salvage native cultures.

>>71404762

Amrican culture is not only European.

Chinese food (from asia), cornbread,tacos etc (from natives)

>>71404762
People talk about "native" Americans even though, by definition, the "native" people of the USA are those who founded the country. That's the problem with the whole "oh, we're all immigrants" mindset. All you Americans with names like Jackson/Johnson/Jones/Williams/Smith...you're "natives".

File: 1471470154635.jpg (25KB, 417x500px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 417x500px

Everyone can be a native brazilian :) Come to brazil :)

>>71404821
>by definition natives are people who founded the country

that still makes 95% of Americans not native

>>71404820
Those are just foods we eat. Chinese Americans make up 2% of our population, they're hardly a huge national cultural influence. We just like eating our food. Mexican-Americans are still assimilating into our culture, but I think they'll be part of it soon simply by sheer numbers.

>>71404864
But Chinese cousine in America is unique to America. Asia doesnt have the same food.

Fortune cookies etc were invented in America

>>71403578
We're all immigrants :")

>>71404859
>that still makes 95% of Americans not native

Not exactly. The people who founded the US were English, Dutch, Scottish, and Northern Irish, as well as all the blacks who were slaves here when the country was founded. People descended from those groups are "native" Americans. So roughly half of the US.

>>71404922
>But Chinese cousine in America is unique to America

"Maharatha Macs" in India are unique to India, that doesn't make McDonald's part of Indian culture...

>>71404944
I dont understand American logic.

So just because someone shares the same ethnicity they can lay credit to it?? what?

Lets say Scottish people founded a city in America in 1650.

So some group of people who immigrate from scotland in 1900 lay claim to credit to what they did? They dont even descend from them

>>71404762
The fact that you have to describe it by referencing European countries is why I'm hesitant to call it native. Our attitudes towards guns are native. Mormonism is native. But a lot of our culture is still better described as "someone brought this to America" than "Americans came up with this."

>>71405150
>The fact that you have to describe it by referencing European countries is why I'm hesitant to call it native.

I'm just putting it in terms that make it easy to explain. Every culture can ultimately be traced back to some other group.

>But a lot of our culture is still better described as "someone brought this to America" than "Americans came up with this."

Nearly all cultures can be described the same way. We just stopped describing them that way a long time ago. Even the "pure" and "insular" Japanese use a writing system based on Chinese characters.