|the indigenous argument....|
- Thursday, November 16 2006, 17:20:32 (CET)|
from 18.104.22.168 - pool-71-116-95-156.snfcca.dsl-w.verizon.net Network - Mac OS - Internet Explorer
...once again the boys are tripped up by the English language. There is no way to prove they are the indigenous people of Iraq simply because they say so. Their criteria, that you must speak Assyrian and be Christian to be indigenous to Iraq, is absurd. You could be from the oldest Assyrian family, have converted to Islam or Buddhism and have forgotten the Assyrian language...how does that affect your indigenous status? What do those two things have to do with whether or not you can trace your roots back 5000 years?
ALL the people of Iraq are indigenous to Iraq. Being Muslim doesn't prove you are Arab and came with the Muslim conquerors. And, finally, even if you did come to Iraq with the Arabs or Kurds...that happened over 1000 years ago and the United Nations has defined "indigenous" as anyone who is descended of people who've occupied the same land for a minimum of 400 years...
In any way you want to define the word, unless you're a child, all the people of Iraq, Muslim or Christian...Kurd, Arab or Mongolian, who can trace their families back at least 400 years, are indigenous.
The Americans, whom the boys hope will DO something about their "indigenous rights" aren't even indigenous to north America yet! Euro-Christians haven't been in America in any significant numbers for 400 years.
Hair-splitting about who is MORE indigenous...even if there was real proof, means nothing in terms of entitlements..because all are now citizens of a modern country...and since no special rights are given to any indigenous people anywhere and since all modern nations exist on stolen lands...this ditzy claim, another pillar in the shakey house of Assyria, means nothing in the real world...in the nursery it might make young ones happy...but it means nothing among adults.
The full topic:|
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.17; Mac_PowerPC)