[ArchStanton]

That's a good point.

Generally, I'd say that any group of Native Americans (or folks who profit from them either emotionally or financially) wants to be thought of as the 'first' people who ever lived on that piece of land. Perhaps they popped up from the earth like the skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts.

There's a legitimacy angle here that's become super important in the last decade or so. Then there's the argument about 'nobody lived here when my people moved in' that's allowed for some people, not for others.

It isn't like the Sioux or the Navajo have been in their current location all that long. It's all so tiresome.

[_moof]

I still don't understand why the question of originality or whatever is anything but a red herring. Europeans came and nearly wiped out the existing peoples and destroyed their cultures. Are we really going to split hairs and say that's a fine and dandy thing to have done? Because if so you'll have to follow it up with an argument for why that same logic does not apply to a hypothetical future invader of the United States, and good luck with that.

[ArchStanton]

>Europeans came and nearly wiped out the existing peoples

The existing peoples wiped out the existing peoples in many cases.

What this all rotates around is a simplistic (and Victorian) view of 'peoples'. 'Red' = the Americas, 'White' = Europe, 'Black' = Africa, etc.

Truth is, a Navajo is not a Hopi, a Celt is not a Saxon is not a Norman. Most of these current fights are simply wordgames played to achieve political power or to suit some peoples' needs for self-flagellation.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> It isn't like the Sioux or the Navajo have been in their current location all that long. It's all so tiresome.

Are there particular reasons that you use the Sioux or the Navajo in this? Is this a general claim that "no populations stay in a particular location for more than X years", or something more specific?

[UncleEntity]

The introduction of horses by the Europeans significantly changed their cultures.

[jcranmer]

Various Sioux tribes were pushed west of the Mississippi around 1600-1700 by various wars that took place between natives at the time. It's probably the most well-known pre-contact migration of Native American tribes (at least those that live in US/Canada; the Mexica migration into the Central Mexico Valley is probably even more well-known, as it's a very key part of their own histories).

[_3u10]

They are likely alluding to the trail of tears.

[jcranmer]

Neither the Sioux nor the Navajo were on the Trail of Tears, which affected the tribes who lived in the US Southeast, most notably the Cherokee, but also the Muskogee, Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw.

[c54]

Are you referring to the ethnic cleansings performed by the US government in the 19th century?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Walk_of_the_Navajo

[ArchStanton]

You'd have to ask what the Navajo did to the Pueblo People who they displaced.