[pvg]

It's not a particularly hard question, it's answered in the article for that specific case:

The act implemented Japan's compulsory national education system in Hokkaido and eliminated traditional systems of Ainu land rights and claims. Over time, the Ainu were forced to give up their land and adopt Japanese customs through a series of government initiatives.

This was in 1899, not 10,000 years ago. I don't know if they are 'shitty' questions but they aren't very serious since they are framed in a pointedly inaccurate and uninformed way.

[mbrumlow]

>This was in 1899, not 10,000 years ago

The first people were in 1899? Or just the "second" people came in 1899?

Part of my argument is that you can't be a "first" person in 1899, because the first people arrived thousands of years before.

Even the first subject is only partly decedents of the "first" peoples.

So if we are going to go down these lines of people get rights, or special treatment based off being indigenous, what are we really looking at? There are have been 1000s of years of intermingling both known and unknown, a "people" are not a static group, people are changing all the time.

Shitty was not the word I wanted to use but I was in a time crunch, callus is more how I feel on the subject.

[pvg]

special treatment based off being indigenous

Not having your language and culture coercively erased is not 'special treatment'. Again, framing it like that is not some flinty insight into a hard truth. It's just making stuff up.

[mbrumlow]

> Not having your language and culture coercively erased is not 'special treatment'.

Languages and cultures have a life cycle, I am not sure any of us would want to live in a society that tolerated and nurtured every culture that ever existed.

That being said you / me / they, are not their culture. You are a individual, and people should only be treated based off their individual merit. Using your culture as a way to distinguished your self and get special treatment, respect, or reconsecration is literally an extension of racism. This is not something you chose, there for it should be meaningless much like the color of your hair, or skin color. When you treat culture like you are -- you are creating exclusionary boundaries based on happenstance. There is nothing to be proud of because you were born in X culture, because you have done nothing. There is nothing to be ashamed of because you were born in Y culture because you as a individual have done nothing but simply existed. Wanting to preserve it -- and not make anew is just burying your head in the sand.

[pvg]

The article is about discrimination and coercion, not the natural ebb and flow of languages and cultures. If you haven't had a chance to read it, it's probably a good time to do so if you want to discuss what's actually in it.

[mbrumlow]

And this thread is about a small part of the topic. We don't need special designations or considerations to combat discrimination. I am also calling into the question the entire notion of indigenous people -- considering that many of groups in question have lived on the same land for 100s of years. I also call into question the notion that your (as in you/me/anybody) ancestors have any tangible relation to today. In such, that, we grant a clean slate to EVERYBODY when they are born, and judge and treat them only on their merit.

In short, your ancestors accomplishments/failures or sins matter not, for you are a new person.