GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119707572
From: (Raymond Whritenour)
Subject: [DNA] "Indigenous, etc."
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 09:52:52 -0400
In-Reply-To: "Peter A. Kincaid" <firstname.lastname@example.org>'s message of Sat, 25 Jun 2005 08:42:04 -0300
"As an example of my point about your classification let me ask you how
this would be interpreted.
"The native Hindu people of Scotland are celbrating their history. Most
are indigenous to Glasgow and Edinburgh where there is a significant
"It covers your classification preferences but how does it help anyone?"
Answer: By making a distinction between one population (the Hindus) and
another (the aboriginal, Caucasian Scots). Make note of the fact that
while I have no idea how one could determine which Caucasian Scots are
aboriginal, the designation could NOT refer to anyone else, in this
context. If you were using the term, "aboriginal," to refer to the
Hindus, then you were incorrectly applying the term.
Finally, my original post on this subject was not a response to anything
you had written. Glen and others were discussing the ambiguity of terms
like indigenous and native, etc.; and I merely offered my two cents
worth towards a solution.