I'd say we need to distinguish between 'native' (etymologically "in-born") and 'aboriginal' (etymologically "very first"). Aboriginal are then the very first people known to have settled a land. Natives are anyone who isn't recent immigrants; who feel that their culture is tied to the land, that they're born to the land. There's a need for a third term, to describe the the people who have lived there the longest of those who are still a distinct people. I'd say 'indigenous', but it technically means the same as 'native'. Obviously, it would be possible for one people to be all of these things. The first people on most North Atlantic islands were monks seeking isolation. I think it's a bit of a stretch to call them 'natives'. Some may have brought secular people with them, though, whose children may be classified as native.
It is a game of semantics. Aborigines, first born. I think indigenous or ancestral works as the second term leaving native to mean you were born and raised on the land.
Aboriginal is synonymous with indigenous, especially here in Australia where your idea definitely wouldn't work. Indigenous people are by definition native but not the other way around.
@@Shadowofromefanatic both. The various tribes all converged together to become Han, each one leaving a genetic trace. Thats why so few Chinese people have significant amounts the DNA of the "original" Han, yet Han is the most populous ethnic group on Earth.
Genetically and linguistically, the Celtic influence in Iceland still exists as the Icelandic language still has properties that can be traced to Celtic languages. The women of Guanches on the Canary Islands were not all killed so their descendants still inhabit the Canary Islands.
@@johnnybegood3847 strangely there is a significant dutch/ flemish strain in Canary islands DNA. Flemish colonizers from when the low countries were under spanish control.
the Dutch are originally from the lost city of Weedlantis, a highly advanced technical society living in the North Sea on a man-made island metropolis, until they discovered cheap beer
yeah right. Everyone has a msytical great ancestry lately. I'm from the lost civilization of Frankuku originated somewhere in the pacific islands. The original franks, who were black bytheway , because who has'nt been black at some point?
Polynesians being native to Madagascar really surprised me! I'm somewhat surprised about Australasians to South America. That's a HECK of a journey to make!
Considering they made it all the way to Easter Island, South America isn't that big of a jump. I read something a while back where the Polynesians could tell how far away, and in which direction, islands were located just by looking at the wave patterns. I don't know if that's true, but it's fascinating none the less.
@@isisalles LOL! Thor Hyerdahl?? Please. He was the 'we wuz kangz' of Europeans. And according to his Kon Tiki writings, Polynesians spread from island to island just by luck (going with the flow of the wind), which is easily debunked. Don't tell people to read his pseudoscientific BS.
@@Кристина_Шульц nothing against you so much as i am venting my frustration with the history of the russian state goverment and the situation of modern peoples under russia like rhe karalian, and north caucasus. So sorry for saying that, just venting about things i find unjust.
About those islands above Scotland - that situation isn’t the least bit surprising. All of Western Europe (Iberian Peninsula, Gaul, British Isles) all used to be (and in most cases currently are still) predominantly Celtic in genetic ancestry
darkdestiny1989 No way, really?? I’m curious since I’m Irish & Gaulish, and I purposely use “Gaulish” (as opposed to French) since it encompasses both France & Belgium (+ arguably far west parts of Germany) all of which I am according to 23&Me (the 3 collectively form a continuous blob area) Like I’m genetically correspondant to 「much of northeast France + all of Belgium + far-northwest Germany」- I had always thought that northeast France & Belgium were heavily Germanified (although still mostly Celtic) and not the other way around 🤔🤔 Very interesting to hear you basically say the opposite 😳😯😆 Do you have any links you can share with me about that?? Thanks! 🙏🏻
習禁評-小熊維尼Finnegan I just found some German sources quickly google. For example www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article1398825/Nur-wenige-Deutsche-sind-echte-Germanen.html 30% Germans are of Eastern European origins, just 6% Germanic while the women are nearly 50% Germanic. indo-european.eu/2018/02/germanic-tribes-during-the-barbarian-migrations-show-mainly-r1b-also-i-lineages/ which states Germanic tribes had already great proportion of R1b which is directly connected to Gaulish celts.
People tend to forget about the death rate during the Plague of Justinian. It pretty much wiped out everybody in Western Europe except those who fished for a living. They had to work hard repopulating the place over the next several hundred years.,
On Min 11:00 to me was the most interesting, I was surprised when you mentioned us @Masaman, I'm a Native of the Archipelago of San Andres, old Providence and St. Catharine, we are descendants of the first settlers, of the intermixing of the english puritans and the west african enslaved people who first inhabited the islands, we call our selves RAIZAL! We acually speak an english-based CREOLE, unfortunately we are now a minority in our territory bcs of mass migration from mainland Colombia whose language, culture and worldview are completely diffrent and therefore brings overwhelming repercussions(intended) for the indigenous people. Historically, genetically, linguistically and culturally we hold closer link and ties with other creole people on other islands and contries in the Caribbean and central America; we also have a history with the indigenous Miskito people.
Sorry to hear your government is trying to breed your people out. The same case is happening here in the US with blacks and whites, who've been here together since the settler times. Looks like we'll be a giant mess very soon.
@@triroa He’s basically a mix already so... well, in many ways, we all are. In the case of the US, blacks and whites have lived and mixed among each other since the country’s foundation, nothing has change and the government is certainly not making any effort to encourage or discourage what has always happened.
@@davidcervantes9336 Idk and can't speak for someone else in another country and in a whole other context but for my reality. So yes I'm mix, it's actually related to what makes us creole, and in our case I can say the Colombian government is intentionally trying to wipe us(raizals) out.
I’m part of the Bornean Dayak tribe and I am surprised to learn that some of our seafaring ancestors sailed all the way to Madagascar. It is hard to learn about the history of our people as it is only passed down orally through the generations. So glad that the current advancement in genetics studies could tell us more about the history our people.
jawa ppl said they sailed to madagascar malay ppl said they sailed to madagascar bugis ppl said they sailed to madagascar now dayak ppl said they sailed to madagascar SO WHICH ONE IS THE REAL?
@Johnny Bravo Yeah but those are Black american channels, not present day Sub-Saharan Africans. Most Africans don't give a shit about history that's irrelevant to us... we have bigger problems to face than fabricating history Obviously I know Africa is the ancestral home of black Americans, but they share nothing in common with us culturally right now.
I'm Colombian, and I've been in the islands that you talked about, English is actually an official language there along with Spanish, and is not rare to find people who are able to talk to you in English, sadly, the only time I visited San Andrés I was 8 years old and I spoke little to no english :(
Idk where I heard this, but I remembered someone telling me that an ethnic is considered native to a land if their present culture and language was first developed on that land. Meaning, if a fully cultured and modern Dutch fleet came to an empty Mascarene Island, they are still not considered natives of the land because their culture and language came from another place. However, since Dutch culture and language as we know it today first began in the Netherlands, hence they are considered natives in Netherlands. It doesn't matter if their ancestors came from somewhere else or if someone else was there first. Because the present day language and culture was first born in that region, and hence they are natives of that area. Can anyone confirm that or correct me if I'm wrong?
That sounds interesting, but wouldn't that mean that most (US) Americans of European descent are native to USA? I get the feeling that this would make the term less useful
@@ravinchowdhury5215 I'm not sure. But I'm pretty sure I wouldn't call America as an ethnicity or culture on its own. I guess we need to define ethnic or culture is first.
I'd tend to agree, but the definition of "culture" and "language" can be hazy. I'm from Newfoundland. I would argue that we have a culture that is native to here, though most of its roots are European. But using the phrase "native to here" implies that our culture is in the same category as the culture of the people who were here before us, and I definitely don't agree with that claim. But if we are not "native" to here, where is our home? The West Country of England? Brittany? Normandy? Our culture is not to be found in any of those places. Are we native to here because some of our ancestors were First Nations people? But that runs the risk of ignoring, or even justifying, the way First Nations people are treated.
@@wfcoaker1398 wow, that is interesting! I agree, the definition of culture is unclear. And in your case, it is even more complicated. Maybe there should be a new category for that situation. I think an anthropologist from your own country would be best to explain that to you. In my country, Malaysia, there different "categories" of natives. We have Orang Asli ("original people" in Malay) referring to the aboriginal tribes that live here, Bumiputeras (meaning "children of the earth" in sanskrit) to refer to the people who migrated here thousands of years ago and have developed a new culture and language here and is also used as the umbrella term for all natives, and Anak Negeri ("children of the state" in Malay) meaning sub-ethnics of foreign races that have adopted the Bumiputera culture and language after generations of cultural interaction.
Depends what you mean by "Oceanians". That word is typically used to refer to the black-skinned people who include Papuans, Melanesians and possibly Australian Aboriginals. Madagascar, on the other hand, was settled by Austronesians, who are a light brown-skinned people who travelled out of East Asia much more recently, and are a very different ethnic group to the above.
I think indigenous/native is a concept we use to establish nationhood and the ‘rights and identity’ of a given populace that has lived and established in a particular land for a extremely long amount of time, becoming an intrinsic, immortalized ‘relic’ of the land, developing an ‘ethnic’ identity. The earth is full of infringements upon each others’ demographics, that it’s much more logical and consistent of people to establish themselves as the ‘clean slated’, indigenous peoples of their inhabited land to avoid any further confrontations and claims of the land by others, a form of innate human tribalism. The only way forward is to start respecting and protecting each others’ identities.
Are the waters between mainland Africa and Madagascar very rough? Or maybe the Africans didn't see a need to go to Madagascar, just like how China probably could've colonized Australia but didn't (then again, did they know). I would think maybe a few people visited or even lived there.
There is evidence of Khoisan inhabitants of the island but they were temporary and never permanently settled. The austronesians arrived by complete accident and were forced to set up permanently shop on the island. Bantu farmers then migrated to the island and introduced iron technology.
@@danshakuimo chinese has been trading with people in malay archipelago for centuries, they never colonize anyone, only europeans colonize other nations,
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 well.... even as a taiwanese indonesian I'm goign to have to say us chinese people definitely colonised the southern half of china from the many different ethnic groups that lived there like the min and stuff
Masaman, thank you so much for investigating, researching and honestly reporting your conclusions without regard to current fads and political correctness.
5:58 Yes but that was Celtic monks there on some sort of missions, not a functioning settlement of people that could constitute a native population. The Faroe Islands where at least temporarily habited a few centuries before the Norse arrived during two short periods. I guess the Celts (or was it Anglo-saxons?) could be considered native to the Faroese if one ignores the fact that they lived there only a few generations and then probably left on their own accord. Anyway in both cases the Celtic blood in the modern Scandinavian populations of the islands did not come from these scattered hermits but from Thralls, bought or "acquired" celtic wifes or norsemen from the British isles with mixed blood.
I think what he is doing is mixing up the orkneys and shetlands with the faeroes and iceland.The shetlands and orkneys would of had a pictish population before scandinavian settlement
I'd just gotten into tracking down a Great Great grandmother who "looked different" than all the others when I first encountered the Sa'ami. The occasion was the death of the last speaker of what was known as the "11th Sa'ami language". Her own ancestors had gone to Europe as miners for the Swedish Empire, and they were driven out by the Russian Tsar from the Carpathian Mountains about 1812. Many fled to Hungary where 20 years later they migrated to the American Midwest to dig canals. Others fled back to the Sapma, in Northern Finland. That territory was lost to the Russians in midst of WWII and many of them migrated West into Sweden where they lived among Skolt Sa'ami who'd also fled Eastern Finland. The way the Sa'ami count things that made my Great Great grandmother a descendant of Skolt and closely related tribes from near a great lake in Finland. But they'd luckily LEFT the region about 1638 when they were rounded up by the Swedes for getting too close to Stockholm in winter, and transported to what is now Delaware. Ultimately, as early arrivals in the European diaspora that peopled America, they became ancestral to a huge group. As foreign people like the English began to spill into "Virginia" in the part called Pennsylvania and New Jersey, they moved West ~ for the most part DUE WEST to Kansas City leaving behind a string of towns named UNIONTOWN or variations thereof! Sometimes they'd call a place something Christmasy like Santa Claus, or Deerpark, or... whatever they fancied. Back in Europe the Russian Orthodox had tried to Christianize them ~ leaving them with only a barebones sort of Christian belief system in America. In Europe that same group created something called The Church of the First Born. And, later on, after the Swedes quit kidnapping tribal people and transporting them, many of them MIGRATED to America on their own. I estimate that today a good 9 million Americans have a strong Sa'ami racial component detectible in several serious genetic differences. Square hearts, improved night vision, loss of blue receptors, and ability to worm the extremities of the body without use of gloves down to 10 degrees Farenheit. That heart thing can sometimes lead to a strange arhythmia .... but the loss of the blue receptors allows for the formation of more than average the number of red receptors.... Another 30 million Americans also share in the ancetry, but their genomes are overwhelmed with OTHER European sourced DNA. They run into these people only in genealogical studies. Today there are only 90,000 identifiable Sa'ami in Scandinavia. There are likely many Europeans with a Sa'ami ancestor simply because those folks moved into the growth of deep ocean fishing in the 1700s. And into WHALING. Hence the fellows who could withstand Antarctic weather rowing around in dingy's spearing whales. Ordinary Europeans usually freeze first! You want to see the Sa'ami at work proving themselves to be DIFFERENT watch the Winter Olympic long distance skiing. The 40 k race starts out UPHILL. All those guys are Sa'ami except 1 German who probably has more than his fair share of Sa'mi ancestry. That square heart makes all the difference!
Yes, Bornean people from Kalimantan is their ancestors. All our ancestors are sailors, I'm sure every ethnicity here in Maritime Southeast Asia has been in contact with one another.
@@hkizzle4869 did you watch the video? It was said that the first humans in Madagascar were not Dutch but Asian. And that the people of Madagascar have african paternal lineage and Asian maternal lineage(not everybody but a significant part of the population)...
What's always fascinated me is that we are ALL survivors - we all have ancestors from 1000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago etc. When you think of that its' awesome!
@TheWeeaboo The first humans emerged in Africa around two million years ago, long before the modern humans known as Homo sapiens appeared on the same continent though
As you very briefly touched down on Shetland, I think a video abiut our history, people, genealogy, language, names etc would be extremely interesting as we share a mixed scottish/Nordic culture/people.
I heard a story once about a tribe on one of the Pacific islands who liked to prank European visitors. They would gather a tribal feast and feed the visitors strange things they fished from the sea, and then laugh and say he was crazy, we don't eat that crap.
2 crazy points 1) all the islands off Africa were uninhabited until the Portuguese came, the Africans never learned to sail nor invented the wheel. 2) The natives of the Canary Islands were blonde haired and blue eyed. Where they originally came from no-one really knows but they had Egyptian-like practices such as embalming the dead.
Former Martian Exactly do your own research. This guy mixes truth with a whole lot of lies. Only morons would think austronesians found Madagascar before Bantus settled there
@@vtecnegro85 no one traveled down ferocious rivers..Wtf. they got out and walked when it was bad. Vikings, China and kemet has boat burial rituals and snake knowledge. Your white and black people hung out with yellow people but the light brown people stole a different religion from some black, white, yellow, and dark brown people then some lighter brown people took that from the light brown people then some dark white and light brown people stole that.. started a corporation and gave light white people a picture of a light white Jesus. A lot of shades responsible for your hate.
pokezee king-wolf He has one video on Malays and another on Austronesian people in general. And the Hausa are the largest Chadic group, and have the second most speakers in the Afro-Asiatic family after Arabic. And they’re Africa’s largest ethnic group.
@@vivetv3710 yes, but Malays are still a large group of different tribes who share similar genetics. You want him to focus on one tribe but that's not what he does.
careful about sharing that, i've read some books and articles that seem to think it was invented by white people about 15 minutes after Columbus landed in the Americas and realized how hard it would be to start farming there. In one of my high school history classes I had a teacher that literally told us "modern slavery was invented after Europeans invaded Africa in the 15th century so they could import workers to North America and the Caribbean" which was especially dumb since the single largest importer of slaves was actually Brazil in addition to slavery being kind of universal for most of human history, and they already had very similar forms of slavery (I.E. chattle slavery) in other parts of the world. In some countries entire family lines would serve the same family for generations, which happened in areas as diverse as the Puget Sound, Yemen, and India.
Tell that to the many Eastern and Southern European slaves captured by Muslims in the 15th century. It’s right, not a white think. It’s typically human to try to gain an advantage over the other.
0:01 Picture brought back a ton of memories and an interesting story you might like! The picture is of a Wishram(Pronounced Wisham by people related, alive today, I've noticed). Taken in 1910 and she likely died in 1920 of the flu. Edward Curtis, the photographer, is known for making them wear traditional garbs even when they wanted to wear more common apparel of the times. But in 2014, I worked at a visitors center and I got to know a Wisham man, with a name I can't remember or pronounce . He was very elderly likely 80s or 90s and he loved visiting to see pictures of his family, he called them cousins. And he claimed to be a Medicine Man. I usually just called him Medicine Man. One day he came in and the place was very busy. He looked around. Noticed a man. And asked him, of all people there, what was wrong. The man had just lost his home in Crimea due to the Russian conflict and he began to get emotional. The Wisham man pulled him aside, gave him a charm, blessed him, and gave him a hug. Working in tourism I was very aware of what's staged and what's not and that wasn't. It genuinely touched me and left an impact to this day.
Tbh the word native seems to always cause some confusion. If your family is British and you've lived in South Africa for about 3 generations would you be considered native? Masaman videos do better explaining and debunking better than school and college does in a faction of the time. That's just how good these videos are.
I think in that context yes they would be a native. In the historical context as in are whites native to Africa, no. Are Dutch native to South Africa? well I think they were the first people in some of the southern tips.
The Dutch weren't the first in any parts of South Africa. People of Dutch descent make up the majority of the population in some towns and cities in South Africa though. This is a result of the displacement of native Khoikhoi and Bantu speaking people through colonization and later on during apartheid
@@teawanpaul6208 I had always thought the very southern tip was first settled by the Dutch. Was there new evidence recently dispelling this idea? I remember reading several years ago about South Africa being settled by Dutch and Bantu-speaking people roughly around the same time from opposite directions.
I'm curious, if the words natvie and indigenous are as was said arbitrary, what is the proper wording we aer looking for to describe the phenomenon we're talking about?
I'm only 3 minutes in and I'm thankful u made this. polynesians were know for long travel on canoe being able to survive off the ocean so I wouldnt doubt some made it to america.. think about it
Its amazing how we have travelled this vast planet & the indigenous were always changing but then some who seized the lands as possession & then influenced the masses kinda changed our nature, guess this is all part of change
There are also examples of people who were the first to inhabit a place. I’m Australian and the Australian Aboriginals were the first inhabitants. With continuous inhabitation. Until colonisation they were it. I’d argue their claim to being natively Australian is stronger than say any Western European population. I mean time scale is one thing, and 60 000 years takes some beating. But even if 59 000 years from now, a distinctly Anglo-Saxon-Norman people and culture survived in Great Britain, they were not the first.
@@emilchandran546 I think Australia and some other far-flung islands are good examples of exceptions where you really can go back to the first peoples.
The map at 1:00 is somewhat confusing to me. Weren't Neanderthals mostly living in Europe? So, how can the present European the ones with the smallest amount of Neanderthal DNA?
To Mason, Masaman. Fascinating. Thank you for having made this video of a compilation of your research on this topic . A lot of good work, beautifully and well presented. I wish you a very good 2021.
I'm pleased that your now referencing Graham Hancock! I hope you'll continue citing his work, as it is Extremely Relevant! And, changes Everything we've been Conditioned to beleive.
The only problem is the Irish and British aren't Celts. They're Britons. The Romans even documented them as being not Celtic (except for tribes in southern Britain like the Iceni who were Celtic)
The dutch/whites of south africa are native there because until they got their and traded for that land, there was no farms, no cities or buildings, it was land not in use.
A funny thing I learned is before mid 1900's Europeans divided themselves into races. My great grandfather listed his race as German on his US naturalization papers. This could include the countries of Poland, Prussia, Saxen, Switzerland, Denmark etc. as opposed to Latin races or the Irish (Celtic) race. Now all these races are lumped into the white race. I would suppose also that Africa also would be divided into several different black races too.
True. "Race" in the modern sense is a non-concept, it is just political, because it doesn't trace along actual cultural and ethnic boundaries but almost completely on appearance. Shallow and counter-productive.
Indigenous Populations refers to people who have been living in a area for thousands to tens of thousands of years who have genetically adapted to the environment, topography and climate of a region and who have created a specific diet, lifestyle and natural selection in a region that also contributed to their genetic evolution. Hence why Native Americans are Native to the Americas; Europeans are Native to Europe; Asians being Native to Asia and Black Africans being Native to Sub Saharan Africa. These Indigenous Populations also have a cultural, spiritual and historic connection to the land that others don't. If a population of a region don't exhibit all these traits of a true Indigenous Populations, they are not Indigenous to that land, they are basically immigrants who settled or forced to move there. Which is why Europeans aren't Native to North Africa, the Americas or Asia and why Africans are not Native to Europe or the Americas. Pacific Islanders may have the adaptation to Pacific Island climates, but they are not Indigenous to all Pacific Islands as other groups such as Austronesian arrived there first hundreds of years earlier. Semitic People of North Africa may have the physical and cultural adaptation to dry deserts and may have been the first settlers of North Africa, they are not necessary Indigenous to that land because they are settlers from the Middle East thousands of years ago, however their cultures evolved there, so it's hard to say.
@@reginaldfagan120 Black People aka Negros are the oldest tropical population, their bodies and genetic evolution adopted to West and Central Africa which are mostly tropical climates. Of course they later expanded into East and South Africa, and into parts of the Nile and North Africa, often forming a sub group that adopted to moderate, desert climates and so on. But genetically, they are still tropical people. Other related groups such as the Khoisan genetically adopted to non tropical climates (moderate climate) over tens of thousands of years. The North African Indigenous People are the various Semitic People and other (original Egyptians, Berbers etc.) who adopted to the desert climates of North Africa over a period of 3 to10 thousands years. There is also a lot of mixed people in North Africa because of thousands of years of conquest, trade and intermingling between North Africans, Europeans, Asians, Middle Easterners and Sub Saharan Africans.
An epidemic wiped out up to 90 percent of the Indians along the Massachusetts coast in 1617-1619, including the Patuxets, before the arrival of the Mayflower. Since the land was clear of people, those who moved into the vacuum can claim to be natives. The land was not stolen, or conquered, nor was possession of the land resisted. Title to other lands was mostly bought from other tribes. If the Pilgrims then are not the natives, who are? All who occupied before died. It has been over 400 years since.
I want to know who _originally_ lived on the Azores, before the Portuguese showed up. There are many megalithic ruins on the islands, including over 100 step pyramids, that predate the Portuguese by at least a thousand years.
I am Portuguese and I have never heard anything about that. Can you provide some pictures of those thousand megalithic ruins. Existing or not, the Azores were desert when the Portuguese arrived there.
I’ve always wondered about this. Were the norse native to greenland, and were they colonized by inuit groups? Since technically they were there ‘first’. Strange world
The Norse were the first to southern Greenland, but they were not the first humans there! Other Inuits were first, but who are not directly related to the current group that calls the island home. There was a small window of time were the Norse were the only humans there but the ancestors of the current Inuit group made it soon afterwards (however I've read that it could have been near simultaneously) on the northern side, but weirdly enough by the time those Inuit made it south, the Norse were pretty much extinct.
@@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions yeah, greenland has kinda changed hands a few times. it was settled by Canadian Eskimos, then Alaskan Thule/Inuit, then for awhile the Alaskan Thule lived in the north with Vikings in the south, then it as all Inuit, then taken over again by Denmark.
Oh man, I really enjoy your videos @Masaman and try to always watch them when they come out! I was sad that you missed the interesting history of the settling of the Galapagos Archipelago for this one. I think it might really interest you. From the first known human visitors being European explorers and pirates- to German/Swiss naturalists and hermits that made one of these remote islands their home, Floreana. Here, even a “Baroness” arrived with her three male lovers and declared herself regent of the island. Then followed the penal colony and large migration of colonists from Ecuador after annexation, becoming the overwhelming majority of the population today. It’s just such an interesting history to me. You could even make the case that these Pacific islands are pretty unique in that their “native” population comes not from the old world, but from a new world republic, Ecuador. Anyway, big fan. Keep up the good work. Saludos desde Quito!
Very interesting video! I am fascinated by the topic. It would be great to see your sources written or linked in the description. For those quibbling about the term "Native American Indian," I really can't blame the author for using it as some indigenous people self-identify that way. Just my take on it, 2. Personally my "thing" is that I would rather hear enslaved people referred to as such, and not or at least not only as "slaves." 3. I mean no offense to the author or participants in the comment section, I hope whoever may be reading this doing well and having a good day. :)
I feel like the idea of who belongs where was a strategy during colonialism, in some countries it was a method of justifying the reasoning behind taking ownership of land because colonialists would argue that inhabitants weren't indigenous. Look at the history of great Zimbabwe for example...
There is distinct language in Poland called wymysorys (in EN) or wymysiöeryś by themself en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wymysorys_language Now about only few dozens of people speaks wymysorys. The language comes from German/Dutch/Frisian immigrants to Poland. They evolved their own language spoken only in few villages.
I'm from the Canary Islands and I think you missed some points regarding the history of the islands. First, an important detail: the original inhabitants of the islands were not called "Guanches". This is a common mistake even among Canarians. Guanches were the inhabitants of the island of Tenerife (Canary Islands), and each island had its own demonym. For example, the original inhabitants of the island of Gran Canaria were simply called "Canarians" or "ancient Canarians", the original inhabitants of La Palma were called Beneahoritas, etc. So, for a more exact and correct way to call them, the original inhabitants of the Canary Islands, as a whole, should be called Canarian aborigins. Also, the Spaniards were not the only European nation to colonize the islands as you make seem in the video. The Portuguese, the Flemish, the Normans, the Genovese, the English/Irish, etc are also part of the Canarian colonial identity since the beginning of the European era in the islands, from which we have inherited many words and surnames (some of them Castilianized over the centuries) that are now almost (or completely) exclusive to the islands. Other than those two things, you did a good job mentioning us on this subject that really fits us well, being the only islands in the Macaronesia to be inhabited prior to the European colonization. For such a tiny territory, we really do have a dense history.
There is a supposed group of people, the Vazimba, who inhabited the island of Madagascar before Austronesians and Bantus arrived. They apparently had their own kingdoms before the conquest of the Merina Kingdom, and may have been a pygmy population. Another anomaly I'd like to know is why a percentage of Azorean DNA (in contrast with mainland Portguese DNA) contains haplogroups/haplotypes common to East Asia.
I was born and raised in a place on Northern Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada... The indigenous people have inhabited that land for over 10,000 years consecutively.... Just up the coast from there... A village site dating back 15,000 years was found... Also where I lived wasnt cover in the last ice age.... Archeologists belive humans lived in that area well before 20,000 years...
"The English were the first to settle Tristaõ da Cuña island" As the name certainly prove it. British were late explorers, they reached Pacific two centuries after Portuguese, Oceania one century after the Dutch. French Coureur des Bois explored North America two centuries before Lewis and Clark. British was better at expelling the early arrived and renaming the place under english names.
@@gengis737 Really..thats your best example.Quote from wikipedia "In the years after the British conquest, the Acadians refused to swear unconditional oaths of allegiance to the British crown. During this time period some Acadians participated in militia operations against the British and maintained vital supply lines to Fortress Louisbourg and Fort Beausejour." So they were left alone for YEARS and only because they caused a military threat were they told to leave. this is not evidence of the British being better at expelling earlier colonists at all but rather the earlier colonist simply not understanding that they couldn't continue causing disruption and mayhem without consequences.
I distinguish between native and indigenous. A native person is one that was born in a given place - which is why I avoid the term "Native American." An indigenous person is one that belongs to the group that is known to have continuously lived the longest in a given place. One can be native without being indigenous and indigenous without being native.
Demographia It's not surprising at all given the dates for the Ban. Expansion and the lack of seafaring in the isolated pre-Ban. tribes. The ancestors of most Africans in much of central, southern, and Eastern Africa today weren't even there around 2 thousand years ago. It's interesting that Masaman didn't touch on that point in this video.
@@hebrewthought9976 omg stfu and stop reading from a religion started in a Pentecostal church in the usa called the 'hebrew Israelites' damn 100 year old BS belief system lmfao
L B listen you single celled troglodyte take your ass back to the opioid zoo you call a trailer park home and find someone to play with or play in traffic I don’t care stop messaging me with your nonsense
According to science, skin color is determined by ultraviolet ray intensity. Anywhere near the tropics people tend to have darker skin as opposed to further away from it. Wide nostrils are an attribute due to heat and humidity. Same goes for hair stright or kinky with an exception of altitude.
@@pedrogouveia4326 You put light skin people in the tropics long enough, and they will become "dark" eventually, without any outside action. And conversely, you move dark skinned people into away from the tropics and, unless they eat a seafood diet full of vitamin D, they will become pale. Any attempt to then judge people by something as shallow as skin color is deeply stupid as this is just a basic change to account for environmental differences.
2:00: "Europeans and Africans claiming that..." , and it stays with unfounded and outdated claims. The Olmec story has been debunked many times (not even mentioning the fact that we now know that the Olmecs were NOT the 1st civilization in the Americas, not even in Mesoamerica. And not mentioning the fact that the earliest known so called "African features" in the art are NOT from the Gulf coast area, but from the Pacific coast). The whole X mtdna line and where is came from, is heavily debated, but the so called Solutrean hypotheses is not taken very seriously by most experts in the field. It also heavily leans on the Clovis First (or maybe 2nd, as a descended of) Theory, something that lost a lot of popularity in recent years. Besides that, nobody back then ever thought in terms like America, Africa, Asia or Europe. That is something we tend to forget very easily. 10 or 20k years ago, these names obviously didn't exist. So to claim that they were Asians, Africans or Europeans, is actually not very accurate. 2:35: the same for the so called Australoid/Australian theory via Antarctica and/or the Pacific. It's actually quite an old theory that is not very likely and is without any evidence. It is of course very well possible that these southeast Asian traites arrived via Japan, Kamchatka and the Aleut-islands. So far, there is more evidence for that theory than for the southward theory. There is more and more evidence for later contacts between America and the Pacific region, as well as strong evidence for later (but still pre 1492) contacts between America and Europe/ Asia. The Tierra del Fuego evidence unfortunately isn't very strong, mainly because of extermination campaigns to wipe out the different nations. And the few skulls don't say very much. 3:24: see above. No evidence for "African " Olmecs what so ever. The "evidence" that is given so often is outdated and clearly racially motivated (typical for the US I would say..) 3:30: YES the Mayas and Aztecs are really natives to central America, although to the specialists (including many Mayas & Aztecs themselves) the area is called Meso America. "Central America" is the area south of that, including large parts of Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama. 4:00: "now that we have a clear and solid definition to work with..."... Indeed we have. But it's not the one you give here in the video. Let me give you 2 links: www.ilo.org/global/topics/indigenous-tribal/WCMS_503321/lang--en/index.htm & www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf The modern term "indigenous" or "native" goes hand in hand with the present day situation these peoples live in. They are a (political) minority in their own land. Often still oppressed (in several ways) by a colonial society. Of course the Americas were never really decolonized because the Anglo-Americans and Spanish-speaking Creoles were never colonized. The same goes for Australia. So yes, according to all modern definitions, the Mayas, Aztecs, the Shawnee, the Ojibwa, the Aleut, the Cora , the Kuna, the Wayuu, and the Mapuche... are all indigenous to their lands. And so the Dutch are not native to Svalbard. But are they native to The Netherlands then? Are they the indigenous peoples of The Netherlands? According to the modern definition, the Dutch are not an Indigenous People. Neither are the English or the French. But this is of course due to the political factor. They are not an oppressed minority in their own countries. So let me give you an even easier definition for native: if the language and culture (religion, philosophy, etc...) were developed in that particular area, then you can call it native. So the Dutch are native to The Netherlands, the English to England, the French to France. The Anglo Americans and the Hispanic Americans speak English and Spanish and have a mostly European (like) culture. Hence, they are not native to the American continent. The Nahuatl modern language, the modern Maya languages, and all other AMERICAN languages, originated on the American continent. They are native languages of that continent and so the speakers are, obviously, as well. It's a lot easier to look at languages and cultures than (merely) to genetics. I like your videos a lot, but this is one of my main remarks: not EVERYTHING is dna or chromosome. Besides, the genetic research is in its infancy.There is so much that we do not know. Especially in the Americas with its enormous lack of data due to the "Great Death" that happened after 1492. It's very doubtful that modern dna can give us a accurate picture of the situation before 1492, since entire populations (and who knows, entire dna lines) died out. Ancient dna is much more interesting but also a lot harder to get. By the way, all modern dna-lines in native americans also developed in America and NOT in Asia or anywhere else. They descend from lines in Asia, but like you said, these lines ultimately descend from lines in Africa. So even according to modern genetics, we are all from Africa but still natives to our continents (again, with the importants side note that terms like Africa and America are extremely recent inventions and would have made no sense to these ancient peoples. There was land and water. Sky, forests, deserts, hills, and mountains...)
I think you need to do a deeper research on what you call Bantu the map you used shows they all came from west Africa Bantu is an umbrella name for assorted ethnicities with different origins some other tribes like m dads tribe is Mbunda and came from north East Africa and many other tribes will tell you the same.
I watch his videos even the one he talked about the Bantu and his narrative is the same. It’s only complex f you want it to be all if you want go with the out of Cameroon theory.
Yes masamam along with most who speak on the topic over simplify it. Various Bantu people's have a very varied origin. In South Africa some of ancestry comes from Khoi and San peoples.
@@TigerTiger-cx3ln I mean... as far as we know, the origin of Bantu people is ultimately Cameroon, but there were long periods of time where migration stopped in the east and central Africa (e.g. the Congo and the eastern shore of Africa, which is supported by some southern African tribes having Semitic genetic markers, probably from Ethiopia or the Arab coastal influence). Similarly, Indo-European people are seemingly from the northern shore of the Black Sea, but many are considered to be native to Europe (obviously) and Asia (including Iran and India), because they settled and concentrated there. The only time when this becomes an actual issue is when it's politicized. As it has been, lately, by certain jumped-up ageing "youth leaders" we won't mention. But the entire point of the video, in case you missed it, is that this is all arbitrary.
@Jay T The Turkic language now spoken there is not native, but Modern Turks in Turkey are mostly descended from the native/preceeding (pre-Turkic) peoples of Anatolia (Hittites, Hurrians, Hatti, Lydians, Luwians, Urartians, and some Greeks) that were there before the Turkic invasions from Central Asia (which imposed a Turkic language but only contributed a small amount of genetics).
@@gabinator3343 Modern Turks (from Turkey) are mostly descended from Turkicized Anatolian natives (e.g. Hittites, Luwians, Hurrians, Hatti, etc.). The true ethnically Turkic Turks are in places like Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, certain other parts of Central Asia, etc.
Jay T not true the English descend from the original Brythonic celts with a small amount of admixture from the tribes you mentioned also that admixture came to England over 1.5 thousand years ago so they are native
@@saulbravo3485 I'm Puerto rican and I got %42 African DNA from various regions including Cameroon and North Africa. %15 indigenous Puerto rican and the rest is various European countries.
can you please do a video on the bengali people? I really want to know about my people group. We are really distinct from the rest of the peoples of the subcontinent
I recently had my "Twenty three and Me," test done. They find certain haplotypes in your genetic code that are associated to regions or ethnic areas in history. However, the ethnic population they designate to be yours is somewhat arbitrary because of the limited number of generation the test can cover. If my ancestors were Frisian in the twelfth century, it doesn't mean they were Frissii in the first century. Most tests only focus on the post "great migration" period in Europe so an Anglo Saxon haplotype winds up in the UK even though both populations originally inhabited Northern Germany and Southern Denmark.
Upload your DNA file to mytrueancestry.com/ they do a more thorough historical analysis of haplogroup origins through different eras of history. I did Ancestry.com for me and my wife and it was pretty vague like 23 and me is. This other was able to show my wife's Cherokee ancestry when Ancestry didn't. If you pay extra they will deep dive your mitocodrial DNA, X and Y chromosomes. Ancestry and 23andme only do your Y results though the rest is in the file.
@@RPSchonherr Thanks for the info Robert. Using Y marker was fine in my case because I only had questions about my dad's ancestry anyway. I still think the results seem somewhat arbitrary because modern concepts like national/regional origin were non existent and early populations didn't habitually spend their entire life cycles in "low resource" environments that are mapped as part of the results. My point is, if your wife is of Cherokee ancestry, her Cherokee ancestors may also have pre-migration Siberian ancestry from centuries before that I would think are just as interesting and important for your wife to know. By the way. was there anyway to designate "Native, new world" haplogroups from Cherokee haplogroups? I would have thought they all appeared as a distinct group besides a few district South American genetic lines with polynesian/aboriginal influences.
3:10 “As cited by Graham Hancock????” I don’t see why you would add this in to an otherwise great video. To be clear, I think all area of science need a person like Hancock. A person who had s constantly looking to disrupt orthodoxy and, perhaps, make stunning, otherwise unimagined, leaps of progress. But outside of Graham and his few accredited supporters (less than 5??), he has never produced the evidence that gain withstand the scientific method of evidence. He has opined very interesting hypothesis that consistently rely largely on a leap of faith based on an extraordinary claim. THIS IS FINE. But none of his sweeping, orthodoxy shifting hypothesis has EVER, not ONE, has survived past the hypothesis stage. His live’s work, to date, has been popular among dreamers and believers in an ancient past that left no physical trace, has used highly selective data (3 pyramids out of 120) and reached claims that, when actually testable, have been consistently wrong.
you give an interesting definition of indigeneity but you should know that 'who set foot here first' is not at ALL how indigenous people view indigeneity. For indigenous people, being indigenous is having ties to the land and waters, intimate knowledge and connection to it-slow gradual replacements like evidently took place in and around fiji where they retained the language even while replacing them genetically would be cases of assimilation into the indigenous culture-in other words since they kept their language and cultural knowledge they are indigenous even if some of their ancestors might have come from somewhere else.
So then the germanics who conquered the celtic british isles and subsequently anglicised the culture, then of course influenced by the frankish normans producing the english we know today would or would not be the natives of england? If not should all germanic peoples be considered native to southern north europe? Or must they learn and be connected to the land, like any farmer is by occupation?
Your statement only seems to apply to the Antarctic question, because he gave plenty of examples of when people not just set foot first but settled the place, like the Portuguese on the Azores or the British on the Falklands. If I were to apply your logic, what about Finnish people? The language they speak is from Asia, but they are genetically closer to their Scandinavian neighbors. There seems to be evidence that it was the Indo-European languages that were displaced in Finland and not the genetics of the place like the Vanuatu example.
Opiniones de JACC's Opinions Finland was always sparsely populated. It wasnt until the 1500s migration within present day Finland started to take place. Finland was also a part of Sweden from around 1150 to 1809. Almost 700 years. They were the same country for all those 700 years, they share long historic, cultural and other ties. About 5-6 % of the natives in Finland are native Swedish speakers. A few people in Finland grow up bilingual. Trying to separate Finland from Sweden in many aspects makes no sense. Let’s not forget about the Sami people who are the only indigenous people in Sweden, Norway and Finland. They came first, way before everybody else migrated to these countries and in fact, they are the only indigenous population across Europe. www.fimm.fi/en/research/projects/finnpopgen
@@AnnaKaunitz So the Basque don't count? Also, the Sami all speak languages related to Finnish, languages that are Urralic, so how indigenous are they really?
I'd say we need to distinguish between 'native' (etymologically "in-born") and 'aboriginal' (etymologically "very first"). Aboriginal are then the very first people known to have settled a land. Natives are anyone who isn't recent immigrants; who feel that their culture is tied to the land, that they're born to the land. There's a need for a third term, to describe the the people who have lived there the longest of those who are still a distinct people. I'd say 'indigenous', but it technically means the same as 'native'. Obviously, it would be possible for one people to be all of these things.
The first people on most North Atlantic islands were monks seeking isolation. I think it's a bit of a stretch to call them 'natives'. Some may have brought secular people with them, though, whose children may be classified as native.
I love this comment. I agree a 3rd term should be made.
It is a game of semantics. Aborigines, first born. I think indigenous or ancestral works as the second term leaving native to mean you were born and raised on the land.
Aboriginal is synonymous with indigenous, especially here in Australia where your idea definitely wouldn't work. Indigenous people are by definition native but not the other way around.
Good point
@Jasta 2 If only lol
The Han were indigenous to such a small part of China its insane how they got where they are today
Isn't that more of a cultural assimilation rather than genetic?
@@Shadowofromefanatic both. The various tribes all converged together to become Han, each one leaving a genetic trace. Thats why so few Chinese people have significant amounts the DNA of the "original" Han, yet Han is the most populous ethnic group on Earth.
@@maxwellli7057 I wonder how would china be like if China was never unified.
@@RocketHarry865 there would be no china. China was named after the xing dynasty.
Never heard of the Han.
It's crazy how the Celtic influence on Iceland and the Berber influence on the Canary Islands almost completely vanished
Genetically and linguistically, the Celtic influence in Iceland still exists as the Icelandic language still has properties that can be traced to Celtic languages. The women of Guanches on the Canary Islands were not all killed so their descendants still inhabit the Canary Islands.
@@johnnybegood3847 yeah its there but its barely noticeable. They didn't have that much of an effect
@@johnnybegood3847 strangely there is a significant dutch/ flemish strain in Canary islands DNA. Flemish colonizers from when the low countries were under spanish control.
I wonder if the Guanches ever made it across the Atlantic and made contact with/interbred with the Taino? I mean before Columbus.
@@nuclearcatbaby1131 in the end, it does not matter. Both races have gone. Though the Taino DNA is still in thecpeople of Puerto Rico.
the Dutch are originally from the lost city of Weedlantis, a highly advanced technical society living in the North Sea on a man-made island metropolis, until they discovered cheap beer
yeah right. Everyone has a msytical great ancestry lately. I'm from the lost civilization of Frankuku originated somewhere in the pacific islands. The original franks, who were black bytheway , because who has'nt been black at some point?
@@backintimealwyn5736 critical thinking? what a race traitor. how dare you!
@@NiskaMagnusson "critical thinking" i don't like the sound of that, it feels threatening.
@@backintimealwyn5736 I wouldn't recommend it
@@backintimealwyn5736 Frankuku? I think the Franks came from Frankfurt
For me the craziest thing is definitely how the Dutch are natives to the Mascarene Islands
@@hkizzle4869 no there weren't. The dutch brought the bantus over
@@Demographiaanthropology from where?
@@Bouvier28 probably the cape colonies, before the british took over
@@Bouvier28 from Africa obviously
@@hkizzle4869 no you dumbass. EVERYONE knows that there were Native Americans but there were no Native Mascarene people
Polynesians being native to Madagascar really surprised me! I'm somewhat surprised about Australasians to South America. That's a HECK of a journey to make!
Considering they made it all the way to Easter Island, South America isn't that big of a jump. I read something a while back where the Polynesians could tell how far away, and in which direction, islands were located just by looking at the wave patterns. I don't know if that's true, but it's fascinating none the less.
Read Kon Tiki by Thor Hyerdahl. It may give you some insight.
Also consider lower water levels
@@isisalles LOL! Thor Hyerdahl?? Please. He was the 'we wuz kangz' of Europeans.
And according to his Kon Tiki writings, Polynesians spread from island to island just by luck (going with the flow of the wind), which is easily debunked. Don't tell people to read his pseudoscientific BS.
hahaha.. lost direction in jungle is much better than at sea
Only 3% of Russia's territories are indigenous Russian land :c
Yea Russia is too big it is just as colonised as the USA
@@timvanrijn8239 what relation do modern Russians have to the past of their ancestors? I'm an ethnic Russian and have not harmed anyone.
@@Кристина_Шульц nothing against you so much as i am venting my frustration with the history of the russian state goverment and the situation of modern peoples under russia like rhe karalian, and north caucasus.
So sorry for saying that, just venting about things i find unjust.
@@КИБАРКУБИЦА-с4д why? :d
@@timvanrijn8239 I think Siberian tribes were dealt a far more worse card
About those islands above Scotland - that situation isn’t the least bit surprising. All of Western Europe (Iberian Peninsula, Gaul, British Isles) all used to be (and in most cases currently are still) predominantly Celtic in genetic ancestry
習禁評-小熊維尼Finnegan western Germany too. DNA paired with celts make up nearly 40% whereas “German” dna only about 10%. Greetings from Germany. 🙂
darkdestiny1989 No way, really?? I’m curious since I’m Irish & Gaulish, and I purposely use “Gaulish” (as opposed to French) since it encompasses both France & Belgium (+ arguably far west parts of Germany) all of which I am according to 23&Me (the 3 collectively form a continuous blob area) Like I’m genetically correspondant to 「much of northeast France + all of Belgium + far-northwest Germany」- I had always thought that northeast France & Belgium were heavily Germanified (although still mostly Celtic) and not the other way around 🤔🤔 Very interesting to hear you basically say the opposite 😳😯😆 Do you have any links you can share with me about that?? Thanks! 🙏🏻
習禁評-小熊維尼Finnegan I just found some German sources quickly google. For example www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article1398825/Nur-wenige-Deutsche-sind-echte-Germanen.html 30% Germans are of Eastern European origins, just 6% Germanic while the women are nearly 50% Germanic. indo-european.eu/2018/02/germanic-tribes-during-the-barbarian-migrations-show-mainly-r1b-also-i-lineages/ which states Germanic tribes had already great proportion of R1b which is directly connected to Gaulish celts.
People tend to forget about the death rate during the Plague of Justinian. It pretty much wiped out everybody in Western Europe except those who fished for a living. They had to work hard repopulating the place over the next several hundred years.,
darkdestiny1989 just received this notification now - thank you!
"We may never know the answer to this question."
*shows a picture of penguins*
I think I know who the natives are...
On Min 11:00 to me was the most interesting, I was surprised when you mentioned us @Masaman, I'm a Native of the Archipelago of San Andres, old Providence and St. Catharine, we are descendants of the first settlers, of the intermixing of the english puritans and the west african enslaved people who first inhabited the islands, we call our selves RAIZAL! We acually speak an english-based CREOLE, unfortunately we are now a minority in our territory bcs of mass migration from mainland Colombia whose language, culture and worldview are completely diffrent and therefore brings overwhelming repercussions(intended) for the indigenous people. Historically, genetically, linguistically and culturally we hold closer link and ties with other creole people on other islands and contries in the Caribbean and central America; we also have a history with the indigenous Miskito people.
Sorry to hear your government is trying to breed your people out. The same case is happening here in the US with blacks and whites, who've been here together since the settler times. Looks like we'll be a giant mess very soon.
@@triroa He’s basically a mix already so... well, in many ways, we all are. In the case of the US, blacks and whites have lived and mixed among each other since the country’s foundation, nothing has change and the government is certainly not making any effort to encourage or discourage what has always happened.
@@davidcervantes9336 lmao funny joke
I've been to San Andres, funny to see Jamaican type accent on white people! Didnt realize Colombia is trying to dilute you out
@@davidcervantes9336 Idk and can't speak for someone else in another country and in a whole other context but for my reality. So yes I'm mix, it's actually related to what makes us creole, and in our case I can say the Colombian government is intentionally trying to wipe us(raizals) out.
I’m part of the Bornean Dayak tribe and I am surprised to learn that some of our seafaring ancestors sailed all the way to Madagascar. It is hard to learn about the history of our people as it is only passed down orally through the generations. So glad that the current advancement in genetics studies could tell us more about the history our people.
jawa ppl said they sailed to madagascar
malay ppl said they sailed to madagascar
bugis ppl said they sailed to madagascar
now dayak ppl said they sailed to madagascar
SO WHICH ONE IS THE REAL?
@@user-xu2qd2bn1g easy explaination: they are the same people called austronesian.
@@user-xu2qd2bn1g they all did probably
the native Malagasy was interesting to me. Austronesians came all the way to there just to be Bantu'd
What I can't imagine is them niggas rowing for like 3month in their small ass boats
@Johnny Bravo Which sub saharans say that?
@Johnny Bravo Yeah but those are Black american channels, not present day Sub-Saharan Africans. Most Africans don't give a shit about history that's irrelevant to us... we have bigger problems to face than fabricating history
Obviously I know Africa is the ancestral home of black Americans, but they share
nothing in common with us culturally right now.
Im an Austronesian native from the Pacific islands.
@@tobisoleye1223 that’s cause we are natives of the America’s , before the Mongolian and Serbians
I'm Colombian, and I've been in the islands that you talked about, English is actually an official language there along with Spanish, and is not rare to find people who are able to talk to you in English, sadly, the only time I visited San Andrés I was 8 years old and I spoke little to no english :(
I am native to the ocean from where my single celled ancestors came
@I like girls only if you stop being gay
Lol
@@Goldrunner1169 I'm native to the shallow pools!
Dumbass
...sure and my grandpa was an amoebe.
It's fascinating how people ended up being natives of so far away
Idk where I heard this, but I remembered someone telling me that an ethnic is considered native to a land if their present culture and language was first developed on that land. Meaning, if a fully cultured and modern Dutch fleet came to an empty Mascarene Island, they are still not considered natives of the land because their culture and language came from another place.
However, since Dutch culture and language as we know it today first began in the Netherlands, hence they are considered natives in Netherlands. It doesn't matter if their ancestors came from somewhere else or if someone else was there first. Because the present day language and culture was first born in that region, and hence they are natives of that area.
Can anyone confirm that or correct me if I'm wrong?
That sounds interesting, but wouldn't that mean that most (US) Americans of European descent are native to USA? I get the feeling that this would make the term less useful
@@ravinchowdhury5215 I'm not sure. But I'm pretty sure I wouldn't call America as an ethnicity or culture on its own. I guess we need to define ethnic or culture is first.
Yeah so far this seems to be the best explanation for this.
I'd tend to agree, but the definition of "culture" and "language" can be hazy. I'm from Newfoundland. I would argue that we have a culture that is native to here, though most of its roots are European. But using the phrase "native to here" implies that our culture is in the same category as the culture of the people who were here before us, and I definitely don't agree with that claim. But if we are not "native" to here, where is our home? The West Country of England? Brittany? Normandy? Our culture is not to be found in any of those places. Are we native to here because some of our ancestors were First Nations people? But that runs the risk of ignoring, or even justifying, the way First Nations people are treated.
@@wfcoaker1398 wow, that is interesting! I agree, the definition of culture is unclear. And in your case, it is even more complicated. Maybe there should be a new category for that situation. I think an anthropologist from your own country would be best to explain that to you.
In my country, Malaysia, there different "categories" of natives. We have Orang Asli ("original people" in Malay) referring to the aboriginal tribes that live here, Bumiputeras (meaning "children of the earth" in sanskrit) to refer to the people who migrated here thousands of years ago and have developed a new culture and language here and is also used as the umbrella term for all natives, and Anak Negeri ("children of the state" in Malay) meaning sub-ethnics of foreign races that have adopted the Bumiputera culture and language after generations of cultural interaction.
Madagascar was actually the largest island settled by Oceanians
What about Papua New Guinea or Australia?
@@retf8977 they didnt take over the entire island, only the coasts
@@maxwellli7057 what the fuck? Plenty of indigenous tribes with history deep within the Australian deserts.
Austronesians not Oceanians
Depends what you mean by "Oceanians". That word is typically used to refer to the black-skinned people who include Papuans, Melanesians and possibly Australian Aboriginals.
Madagascar, on the other hand, was settled by Austronesians, who are a light brown-skinned people who travelled out of East Asia much more recently, and are a very different ethnic group to the above.
I think indigenous/native is a concept we use to establish nationhood and the ‘rights and identity’ of a given populace that has lived and established in a particular land for a extremely long amount of time, becoming an intrinsic, immortalized ‘relic’ of the land, developing an ‘ethnic’ identity.
The earth is full of infringements upon each others’ demographics, that it’s much more logical and consistent of people to establish themselves as the ‘clean slated’, indigenous peoples of their inhabited land to avoid any further confrontations and claims of the land by others, a form of innate human tribalism.
The only way forward is to start respecting and protecting each others’ identities.
@Jasta 2
Agreed, sad.
I was really surprised that the first inhabitants of Madagascar were from Asia considering how close the island is to Africa.
Are the waters between mainland Africa and Madagascar very rough? Or maybe the Africans didn't see a need to go to Madagascar, just like how China probably could've colonized Australia but didn't (then again, did they know). I would think maybe a few people visited or even lived there.
There is evidence of Khoisan inhabitants of the island but they were temporary and never permanently settled. The austronesians arrived by complete accident and were forced to set up permanently shop on the island. Bantu farmers then migrated to the island and introduced iron technology.
@@danshakuimo chinese has been trading with people in malay archipelago for centuries, they never colonize anyone, only europeans colonize other nations,
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 well.... even as a taiwanese indonesian I'm goign to have to say us chinese people definitely colonised the southern half of china from the many different ethnic groups that lived there like the min and stuff
@@YaBoiDREX I highly doubt Khoi/San people made it to Madagascar. What evidence do you have?
I am the only native inhabitant of the island of Solipsisto.
😉
What country this island is?
ArchEnema 67 no, I am
Actually its me. All of you are simple beings.
Masaman, thank you so much for investigating, researching and honestly reporting your conclusions without regard to current fads and political correctness.
5:58 Yes but that was Celtic monks there on some sort of missions, not a functioning settlement of people that could constitute a native population.
The Faroe Islands where at least temporarily habited a few centuries before the Norse arrived during two short periods.
I guess the Celts (or was it Anglo-saxons?) could be considered native to the Faroese if one ignores the fact that they lived there only a few generations and then probably left on their own accord.
Anyway in both cases the Celtic blood in the modern Scandinavian populations of the islands did not come from these scattered hermits but from Thralls, bought or "acquired" celtic wifes or norsemen from the British isles with mixed blood.
@The Nova renaissance I believe he's mixing up Anglo - Saxon and Celt as synonymous
The celtics are tlaxcalteca of Mexico and Cymerians or the maroons of florida.
They are the people of the Sun that civilized Mediterranean countries
@The Nova renaissance They were a maritime people with boats.
I think what he is doing is mixing up the orkneys and shetlands with the faeroes and iceland.The shetlands and orkneys would of had a pictish population before scandinavian settlement
Oh, baby. I only now noticed. The Masaman is now releasing videos in 1080p!
I'd just gotten into tracking down a Great Great grandmother who "looked different" than all the others when I first encountered the Sa'ami.
The occasion was the death of the last speaker of what was known as the "11th Sa'ami language". Her own ancestors had gone to Europe as miners for the Swedish Empire, and they were driven out by the Russian Tsar from the Carpathian Mountains about 1812. Many fled to Hungary where 20 years later they migrated to the American Midwest to dig canals. Others fled back to the Sapma, in Northern Finland.
That territory was lost to the Russians in midst of WWII and many of them migrated West into Sweden where they lived among Skolt Sa'ami who'd also fled Eastern Finland.
The way the Sa'ami count things that made my Great Great grandmother a descendant of Skolt and closely related tribes from near a great lake in Finland. But they'd luckily LEFT the region about 1638 when they were rounded up by the Swedes for getting too close to Stockholm in winter, and transported to what is now Delaware. Ultimately, as early arrivals in the European diaspora that peopled America, they became ancestral to a huge group.
As foreign people like the English began to spill into "Virginia" in the part called Pennsylvania and New Jersey, they moved West ~ for the most part DUE WEST to Kansas City leaving behind a string of towns named UNIONTOWN or variations thereof! Sometimes they'd call a place something Christmasy like Santa Claus, or Deerpark, or... whatever they fancied.
Back in Europe the Russian Orthodox had tried to Christianize them ~ leaving them with only a barebones sort of Christian belief system in America. In Europe that same group created something called The Church of the First Born. And, later on, after the Swedes quit kidnapping tribal people and transporting them, many of them MIGRATED to America on their own.
I estimate that today a good 9 million Americans have a strong Sa'ami racial component detectible in several serious genetic differences. Square hearts, improved night vision, loss of blue receptors, and ability to worm the extremities of the body without use of gloves down to 10 degrees Farenheit. That heart thing can sometimes lead to a strange arhythmia .... but the loss of the blue receptors allows for the formation of more than average the number of red receptors....
Another 30 million Americans also share in the ancetry, but their genomes are overwhelmed with OTHER European sourced DNA. They run into these people only in genealogical studies.
Today there are only 90,000 identifiable Sa'ami in Scandinavia. There are likely many Europeans with a Sa'ami ancestor simply because those folks moved into the growth of deep ocean fishing in the 1700s. And into WHALING. Hence the fellows who could withstand Antarctic weather rowing around in dingy's spearing whales. Ordinary Europeans usually freeze first!
You want to see the Sa'ami at work proving themselves to be DIFFERENT watch the Winter Olympic long distance skiing. The 40 k race starts out UPHILL. All those guys are Sa'ami except 1 German who probably has more than his fair share of Sa'mi ancestry. That square heart makes all the difference!
Why do YOU capitalise RANDOM words in your SENTENCES?
Did you mean to write Sámi and Sápmi? Do you have any sources for your claims about the Sámi having all these extraordinary physical features?
Fascinating, that about the "square heart" and the dysarythmia! That should be made known to student doctors!
Very interesting
Interesting. Never. Heard. Of. This. Information
The Madagascar case is really interesting!
Their main cultural and liguistic influence is of malay origin.
Yes, Bornean people from Kalimantan is their ancestors.
All our ancestors are sailors, I'm sure every ethnicity here in Maritime Southeast Asia has been in contact with one another.
Bantu people was there and the Dutch came a d killed them this video is a lie
@@hkizzle4869 did you watch the video? It was said that the first humans in Madagascar were not Dutch but Asian. And that the people of Madagascar have african paternal lineage and Asian maternal lineage(not everybody but a significant part of the population)...
@@lightarrow1684 what do you mean did I watch the video , history books also says Christopher Columbus discovered America do you believe that too.
The term "native" or "indigenous" is definitely highly relative by the cultures in the different regions, and means little by itself.
acammtt lol meanwhile in Latin America, full-blooded amerindians who abandoned their culture and language are considered mestizos
More like highly relative to political backlash, endless whining and victimisation culture.
Both words exist only for political purposes.
Perhaps to the uneducated.
What's always fascinated me is that we are ALL survivors - we all have ancestors from 1000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago etc. When you think of that its' awesome!
Imagine that, people have been conquering and mixing with each other since forever.
Imagine all these people lived for thousand and some millions of years ago, and so much happens right now.
@TheWeeaboo The first humans emerged in Africa around two million years ago, long before the modern humans known as Homo sapiens appeared on the same continent though
@TheWeeaboo Yeah
3:07 there is an editing error
As you very briefly touched down on Shetland, I think a video abiut our history, people, genealogy, language, names etc would be extremely interesting as we share a mixed scottish/Nordic culture/people.
I heard a story once about a tribe on one of the Pacific islands who liked to prank European visitors. They would gather a tribal feast and feed the visitors strange things they fished from the sea, and then laugh and say he was crazy, we don't eat that crap.
Am I a native to this video?
yes
no you didn't upload it, you migrated to it
Your a soujorner like Jesus yawey
2 crazy points 1) all the islands off Africa were uninhabited until the Portuguese came, the Africans never learned to sail nor invented the wheel. 2) The natives of the Canary Islands were blonde haired and blue eyed. Where they originally came from no-one really knows but they had Egyptian-like practices such as embalming the dead.
I look like a denisovan
some denisovan recreations are beautiful tbh, dont feel bad
Wilem Dafoe makes it work ❤
You Don't
No shame in that
It's crazy how all that time, Africans never discovered Madagascar
It's entirely possible they did, but just never permanently settled it.
There was Bantu migration on the Eastern side of Madagascar though.
Not really.
Former Martian
Exactly do your own research. This guy mixes truth with a whole lot of lies. Only morons would think austronesians found Madagascar before Bantus settled there
@@vtecnegro85 no one traveled down ferocious rivers..Wtf. they got out and walked when it was bad. Vikings, China and kemet has boat burial rituals and snake knowledge. Your white and black people hung out with yellow people but the light brown people stole a different religion from some black, white, yellow, and dark brown people then some lighter brown people took that from the light brown people then some dark white and light brown people stole that.. started a corporation and gave light white people a picture of a light white Jesus. A lot of shades responsible for your hate.
Can you do a video on Hausa people?
He already did I’m pretty sure
I did my dna break downs and I have a large % of Hausa Nigeria in me. I did a video on it.
pokezee king-wolf I mean specifically the Hausa, not on the Chadic people and Nigeria in general.
pokezee king-wolf He has one video on Malays and another on Austronesian people in general. And the Hausa are the largest Chadic group, and have the second most speakers in the Afro-Asiatic family after Arabic.
And they’re Africa’s largest ethnic group.
@@vivetv3710 yes, but Malays are still a large group of different tribes who share similar genetics. You want him to focus on one tribe but that's not what he does.
...it's called slavery bro....it's not just a white thing it's a human thing.
One day those robots in the factories will rise up and the world will be like Hatti 1806
careful about sharing that, i've read some books and articles that seem to think it was invented by white people about 15 minutes after Columbus landed in the Americas and realized how hard it would be to start farming there. In one of my high school history classes I had a teacher that literally told us "modern slavery was invented after Europeans invaded Africa in the 15th century so they could import workers to North America and the Caribbean" which was especially dumb since the single largest importer of slaves was actually Brazil in addition to slavery being kind of universal for most of human history, and they already had very similar forms of slavery (I.E. chattle slavery) in other parts of the world. In some countries entire family lines would serve the same family for generations, which happened in areas as diverse as the Puget Sound, Yemen, and India.
@@arthas640 How did this person become a teacher haha.
Tell that to the many Eastern and Southern European slaves captured by Muslims in the 15th century. It’s right, not a white think. It’s typically human to try to gain an advantage over the other.
Arthas Menethil yep and the Islamic Arab slave trade existed 700 years before the European one.
0:01 Picture brought back a ton of memories and an interesting story you might like! The picture is of a Wishram(Pronounced Wisham by people related, alive today, I've noticed). Taken in 1910 and she likely died in 1920 of the flu. Edward Curtis, the photographer, is known for making them wear traditional garbs even when they wanted to wear more common apparel of the times.
But in 2014, I worked at a visitors center and I got to know a Wisham man, with a name I can't remember or pronounce . He was very elderly likely 80s or 90s and he loved visiting to see pictures of his family, he called them cousins. And he claimed to be a Medicine Man. I usually just called him Medicine Man.
One day he came in and the place was very busy. He looked around. Noticed a man. And asked him, of all people there, what was wrong. The man had just lost his home in Crimea due to the Russian conflict and he began to get emotional. The Wisham man pulled him aside, gave him a charm, blessed him, and gave him a hug. Working in tourism I was very aware of what's staged and what's not and that wasn't. It genuinely touched me and left an impact to this day.
Was the man born in Antarctica in 1858 allowed to join the Australian Natives Association (ANA)?
Tbh the word native seems to always cause some confusion.
If your family is British and you've lived in South Africa for about 3 generations would you be considered native?
Masaman videos do better explaining and debunking better than school and college does in a faction of the time.
That's just how good these videos are.
I think in that context yes they would be a native. In the historical context as in are whites native to Africa, no. Are Dutch native to South Africa? well I think they were the first people in some of the southern tips.
The Dutch weren't the first in any parts of South Africa. People of Dutch descent make up the majority of the population in some towns and cities in South Africa though. This is a result of the displacement of native Khoikhoi and Bantu speaking people through colonization and later on during apartheid
@@hre2044 no bantu lived south africa four thousands of years and khoisan for hundreds of thousands whites are not native in any part of africa
@@teawanpaul6208 whites only make up 8 percent of the population
@@teawanpaul6208 I had always thought the very southern tip was first settled by the Dutch. Was there new evidence recently dispelling this idea? I remember reading several years ago about South Africa being settled by Dutch and Bantu-speaking people roughly around the same time from opposite directions.
great vid, Masaman. i always learn new things about the world from your vids.
I'm curious, if the words natvie and indigenous are as was said arbitrary, what is the proper wording we aer looking for to describe the phenomenon we're talking about?
I'm only 3 minutes in and I'm thankful u made this. polynesians were know for long travel on canoe being able to survive off the ocean so I wouldnt doubt some made it to america.. think about it
Its amazing how we have travelled this vast planet & the indigenous were always changing but then some who seized the lands as possession & then influenced the masses kinda changed our nature, guess this is all part of change
Such a great video. Nativeness is just a matter of timescale. How far back do you want go is often the question I ask people.
There are also examples of people who were the first to inhabit a place. I’m Australian and the Australian Aboriginals were the first inhabitants. With continuous inhabitation. Until colonisation they were it.
I’d argue their claim to being natively Australian is stronger than say any Western European population.
I mean time scale is one thing, and 60 000 years takes some beating. But even if 59 000 years from now, a distinctly Anglo-Saxon-Norman people and culture survived in Great Britain, they were not the first.
@@emilchandran546 I think Australia and some other far-flung islands are good examples of exceptions where you really can go back to the first peoples.
Nativeness is FAR more than just timescale
The map at 1:00 is somewhat confusing to me. Weren't Neanderthals mostly living in Europe? So, how can the present European the ones with the smallest amount of Neanderthal DNA?
no , europe mostly, near east and even asia.
To Mason, Masaman.
Fascinating. Thank you for having made this video of a compilation of your research on this topic .
A lot of good work, beautifully and well presented.
I wish you a very good 2021.
Masaman your audio is so quiet. Other videos I watch are loud so you mind turning up your audio level?
I'm pleased that your now referencing Graham Hancock!
I hope you'll continue citing his work, as it is Extremely Relevant!
And, changes Everything we've been Conditioned to beleive.
LOL he's a total hack. And i don't see how it's relevant to accurate genetic works at all.
@@GilgameshEthics you obviously haven't seen, or read any of his work... Your probably a Clovis First Rube!
@@alaayuwuh3012 Have read his work. It's crap. And no clovis first has been clearly disproven by evidence. I'm an evidence boy.
@@GilgameshEthics I guess you are entitled to your opinions... even if they are incorrect.
@@alaayuwuh3012 i guess you are entitled to believe bullshit scifi pretending to be science but how about not spuing it as fact?
Graham Hancock. Are you fucking kidding?! It all seemed quite reasonable up until that.
As far as i know, the Norwegian girl born in South Georgia got the Argentine nationality and ended up living in Bueno Aíres, so.... mistery solved?
I'm indigenous to my couch 😎
SO FUNNY !!!! 😂😂😂.
Really? Did you build your couch yourself? Did you produce all the materials needed to construct that couch? 😁
ZhangtheGreat no, but he was made on his couch, born on his couch, lived on his couch, and will die on his couch.
@@connr8691 he becomes the couch
Dude get a new couch!!!!! if you're indigenous to it that means you were born on the thing.. and yeah hopefully the first person born on it 🤣🤣🤣🤮🤮
The only problem is the Irish and British aren't Celts. They're Britons. The Romans even documented them as being not Celtic (except for tribes in southern Britain like the Iceni who were Celtic)
Can I check which music do you use in the background here?
The dutch/whites of south africa are native there because until they got their and traded for that land, there was no farms, no cities or buildings, it was land not in use.
Awesome video Mason, best wishes from the UK. 🇬🇧👍🇺🇸
A funny thing I learned is before mid 1900's Europeans divided themselves into races. My great grandfather listed his race as German on his US naturalization papers. This could include the countries of Poland, Prussia, Saxen, Switzerland, Denmark etc. as opposed to Latin races or the Irish (Celtic) race. Now all these races are lumped into the white race. I would suppose also that Africa also would be divided into several different black races too.
True. "Race" in the modern sense is a non-concept, it is just political, because it doesn't trace along actual cultural and ethnic boundaries but almost completely on appearance. Shallow and counter-productive.
What's the name of the ruins and place at 0:12?
Indigenous Populations refers to people who have been living in a area for thousands to tens of thousands of years who have genetically adapted to the environment, topography and climate of a region and who have created a specific diet, lifestyle and natural selection in a region that also contributed to their genetic evolution. Hence why Native Americans are Native to the Americas; Europeans are Native to Europe; Asians being Native to Asia and Black Africans being Native to Sub Saharan Africa.
These Indigenous Populations also have a cultural, spiritual and historic connection to the land that others don't. If a population of a region don't exhibit all these traits of a true Indigenous Populations, they are not Indigenous to that land, they are basically immigrants who settled or forced to move there. Which is why Europeans aren't Native to North Africa, the Americas or Asia and why Africans are not Native to Europe or the Americas.
Pacific Islanders may have the adaptation to Pacific Island climates, but they are not Indigenous to all Pacific Islands as other groups such as Austronesian arrived there first hundreds of years earlier. Semitic People of North Africa may have the physical and cultural adaptation to dry deserts and may have been the first settlers of North Africa, they are not necessary Indigenous to that land because they are settlers from the Middle East thousands of years ago, however their cultures evolved there, so it's hard to say.
Africans are native to the complete African continent. Not just self-sahara Africa!
@@reginaldfagan120 Black People aka Negros are the oldest tropical population, their bodies and genetic evolution adopted to West and Central Africa which are mostly tropical climates. Of course they later expanded into East and South Africa, and into parts of the Nile and North Africa, often forming a sub group that adopted to moderate, desert climates and so on. But genetically, they are still tropical people. Other related groups such as the Khoisan genetically adopted to non tropical climates (moderate climate) over tens of thousands of years.
The North African Indigenous People are the various Semitic People and other (original Egyptians, Berbers etc.) who adopted to the desert climates of North Africa over a period of 3 to10 thousands years. There is also a lot of mixed people in North Africa because of thousands of years of conquest, trade and intermingling between North Africans, Europeans, Asians, Middle Easterners and Sub Saharan Africans.
An epidemic wiped out up to 90 percent of the Indians along the Massachusetts coast in 1617-1619, including the Patuxets, before the arrival of the Mayflower. Since the land was clear of people, those who moved into the vacuum can claim to be natives. The land was not stolen, or conquered, nor was possession of the land resisted. Title to other lands was mostly bought from other tribes. If the Pilgrims then are not the natives, who are? All who occupied before died. It has been over 400 years since.
This is the most ignorant comment I’ve read in months.
I want to know who _originally_ lived on the Azores, before the Portuguese showed up. There are many megalithic ruins on the islands, including over 100 step pyramids, that predate the Portuguese by at least a thousand years.
it's atlantis
Never heard of this. Any sources?
Hmmm intriguing
I am Portuguese and I have never heard anything about that. Can you provide some pictures of those thousand megalithic ruins. Existing or not, the Azores were desert when the Portuguese arrived there.
@@JoseFernandes-js7ep I think he jumbled together Mesoamerica, Malta and the Azores.
I’ve always wondered about this. Were the norse native to greenland, and were they colonized by inuit groups? Since technically they were there ‘first’. Strange world
The Norse were the first to southern Greenland, but they were not the first humans there! Other Inuits were first, but who are not directly related to the current group that calls the island home. There was a small window of time were the Norse were the only humans there but the ancestors of the current Inuit group made it soon afterwards (however I've read that it could have been near simultaneously) on the northern side, but weirdly enough by the time those Inuit made it south, the Norse were pretty much extinct.
@@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions yeah, greenland has kinda changed hands a few times. it was settled by Canadian Eskimos, then Alaskan Thule/Inuit, then for awhile the Alaskan Thule lived in the north with Vikings in the south, then it as all Inuit, then taken over again by Denmark.
Oh man, I really enjoy your videos @Masaman and try to always watch them when they come out! I was sad that you missed the interesting history of the settling of the Galapagos Archipelago for this one. I think it might really interest you. From the first known human visitors being European explorers and pirates- to German/Swiss naturalists and hermits that made one of these remote islands their home, Floreana. Here, even a “Baroness” arrived with her three male lovers and declared herself regent of the island. Then followed the penal colony and large migration of colonists from Ecuador after annexation, becoming the overwhelming majority of the population today. It’s just such an interesting history to me. You could even make the case that these Pacific islands are pretty unique in that their “native” population comes not from the old world, but from a new world republic, Ecuador. Anyway, big fan. Keep up the good work. Saludos desde Quito!
i learned something else about you in this video... i like your effort to be not be biased.... especially when dealing with sensitive topics
Very interesting video! I am fascinated by the topic. It would be great to see your sources written or linked in the description.
For those quibbling about the term "Native American Indian," I really can't blame the author for using it as some indigenous people self-identify that way. Just my take on it,
2. Personally my "thing" is that I would rather hear enslaved people referred to as such, and not or at least not only as "slaves."
3. I mean no offense to the author or participants in the comment section, I hope whoever may be reading this doing well and having a good day. :)
I feel like the idea of who belongs where was a strategy during colonialism, in some countries it was a method of justifying the reasoning behind taking ownership of land because colonialists would argue that inhabitants weren't indigenous. Look at the history of great Zimbabwe for example...
Great video! You should do a video on the natives of Greenland, that gets ambitious very quickly
Can you make your video in organized and structured format? It's very hard to follow.
There is distinct language in Poland called wymysorys (in EN) or wymysiöeryś by themself en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wymysorys_language
Now about only few dozens of people speaks wymysorys.
The language comes from German/Dutch/Frisian immigrants to Poland. They evolved their own language spoken only in few villages.
it's like the sorbs but reverse
I'm from the Canary Islands and I think you missed some points regarding the history of the islands.
First, an important detail: the original inhabitants of the islands were not called "Guanches". This is a common mistake even among Canarians. Guanches were the inhabitants of the island of Tenerife (Canary Islands), and each island had its own demonym. For example, the original inhabitants of the island of Gran Canaria were simply called "Canarians" or "ancient Canarians", the original inhabitants of La Palma were called Beneahoritas, etc. So, for a more exact and correct way to call them, the original inhabitants of the Canary Islands, as a whole, should be called Canarian aborigins.
Also, the Spaniards were not the only European nation to colonize the islands as you make seem in the video. The Portuguese, the Flemish, the Normans, the Genovese, the English/Irish, etc are also part of the Canarian colonial identity since the beginning of the European era in the islands, from which we have inherited many words and surnames (some of them Castilianized over the centuries) that are now almost (or completely) exclusive to the islands.
Other than those two things, you did a good job mentioning us on this subject that really fits us well, being the only islands in the Macaronesia to be inhabited prior to the European colonization. For such a tiny territory, we really do have a dense history.
There is a supposed group of people, the Vazimba, who inhabited the island of Madagascar before Austronesians and Bantus arrived. They apparently had their own kingdoms before the conquest of the Merina Kingdom, and may have been a pygmy population.
Another anomaly I'd like to know is why a percentage of Azorean DNA (in contrast with mainland Portguese DNA) contains haplogroups/haplotypes common to East Asia.
It's probably just the result of the Founders Effect.
I had a boss who was from Bermuda. He had strongly English features and spoke with a middle class English accent.
I was born and raised in a place on Northern Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada... The indigenous people have inhabited that land for over 10,000 years consecutively.... Just up the coast from there... A village site dating back 15,000 years was found... Also where I lived wasnt cover in the last ice age.... Archeologists belive humans lived in that area well before 20,000 years...
Like American, Australian, Canadian and New Zealanders are natives of England before the invasions
"The English were the first to settle Tristaõ da Cuña island"
As the name certainly prove it.
British were late explorers, they reached Pacific two centuries after Portuguese, Oceania one century after the Dutch. French Coureur des Bois explored North America two centuries before Lewis and Clark.
British was better at expelling the early arrived and renaming the place under english names.
Yea, like New York and New Jersey.
Discovering and actually settling an island are two VERY different things.
evidence for expelling people?
@@francesca6355 Acadie, as an example.
@@gengis737 Really..thats your best example.Quote from wikipedia
"In the years after the British conquest, the Acadians refused to swear unconditional oaths of allegiance to the British crown. During this time period some Acadians participated in militia operations against the British and maintained vital supply lines to Fortress Louisbourg and Fort Beausejour."
So they were left alone for YEARS and only because they caused a military threat were they told to leave. this is not evidence of the British being better at expelling earlier colonists at all but rather the earlier colonist simply not understanding that they couldn't continue causing disruption and mayhem without consequences.
I like Masaman videos, easy to understand and very interesting, good work!
@Masaman - Excellent & interesting episode! B safe & Keep 'em coming!
I distinguish between native and indigenous. A native person is one that was born in a given place - which is why I avoid the term "Native American." An indigenous person is one that belongs to the group that is known to have continuously lived the longest in a given place. One can be native without being indigenous and indigenous without being native.
it's surprising how Africans never discovered the Mascarene Islands
Demographia
It's not surprising at all given the dates for the Ban. Expansion and the lack of seafaring in the isolated pre-Ban. tribes. The ancestors of most Africans in much of central, southern, and Eastern Africa today weren't even there around 2 thousand years ago. It's interesting that Masaman didn't touch on that point in this video.
TonyMishima92 where the fuck did you get that bull shit from ?
@@hebrewthought9976 omg stfu and stop reading from a religion started in a Pentecostal church in the usa called the 'hebrew Israelites' damn 100 year old BS belief system lmfao
L B listen you single celled troglodyte take your ass back to the opioid zoo you call a trailer park home and find someone to play with or play in traffic I don’t care stop messaging me with your nonsense
@@hebrewthought9976
Try google my friend. Look up the Bantu Expansion.
Can you do a video on the undiscovered tribes still around today ?
It'd be nice to see a map showing just how many are left and where they are.
According to science, skin color is determined by ultraviolet ray intensity. Anywhere near the tropics people tend to have darker skin as opposed to further away from it. Wide nostrils are an attribute due to heat and humidity. Same goes for hair stright or kinky with an exception of altitude.
Narrow nostrils are as humidifiers.
I hope this helps 🙏
@@kaptainplantit point being?
O thats realy intresting. Nature is amazing
Kaptain Plant-it
No it’s determined by eumelanin. If a white person goes into the sun they get sunburned
@@pedrogouveia4326 You put light skin people in the tropics long enough, and they will become "dark" eventually, without any outside action. And conversely, you move dark skinned people into away from the tropics and, unless they eat a seafood diet full of vitamin D, they will become pale. Any attempt to then judge people by something as shallow as skin color is deeply stupid as this is just a basic change to account for environmental differences.
This video is a great way to stand on your view with all this evidence. I like it!
2:00: "Europeans and Africans claiming that..." , and it stays with unfounded and outdated claims. The Olmec story has been debunked many times (not even mentioning the fact that we now know that the Olmecs were NOT the 1st civilization in the Americas, not even in Mesoamerica. And not mentioning the fact that the earliest known so called "African features" in the art are NOT from the Gulf coast area, but from the Pacific coast). The whole X mtdna line and where is came from, is heavily debated, but the so called Solutrean hypotheses is not taken very seriously by most experts in the field. It also heavily leans on the Clovis First (or maybe 2nd, as a descended of) Theory, something that lost a lot of popularity in recent years. Besides that, nobody back then ever thought in terms like America, Africa, Asia or Europe. That is something we tend to forget very easily. 10 or 20k years ago, these names obviously didn't exist. So to claim that they were Asians, Africans or Europeans, is actually not very accurate.
2:35: the same for the so called Australoid/Australian theory via Antarctica and/or the Pacific. It's actually quite an old theory that is not very likely and is without any evidence. It is of course very well possible that these southeast Asian traites arrived via Japan, Kamchatka and the Aleut-islands. So far, there is more evidence for that theory than for the southward theory. There is more and more evidence for later contacts between America and the Pacific region, as well as strong evidence for later (but still pre 1492) contacts between America and Europe/ Asia. The Tierra del Fuego evidence unfortunately isn't very strong, mainly because of extermination campaigns to wipe out the different nations. And the few skulls don't say very much.
3:24: see above. No evidence for "African " Olmecs what so ever. The "evidence" that is given so often is outdated and clearly racially motivated (typical for the US I would say..)
3:30: YES the Mayas and Aztecs are really natives to central America, although to the specialists (including many Mayas & Aztecs themselves) the area is called Meso America. "Central America" is the area south of that, including large parts of Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama.
4:00: "now that we have a clear and solid definition to work with..."... Indeed we have. But it's not the one you give here in the video. Let me give you 2 links: www.ilo.org/global/topics/indigenous-tribal/WCMS_503321/lang--en/index.htm & www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf
The modern term "indigenous" or "native" goes hand in hand with the present day situation these peoples live in. They are a (political) minority in their own land. Often still oppressed (in several ways) by a colonial society. Of course the Americas were never really decolonized because the Anglo-Americans and Spanish-speaking Creoles were never colonized. The same goes for Australia. So yes, according to all modern definitions, the Mayas, Aztecs, the Shawnee, the Ojibwa, the Aleut, the Cora , the Kuna, the Wayuu, and the Mapuche... are all indigenous to their lands.
And so the Dutch are not native to Svalbard.
But are they native to The Netherlands then? Are they the indigenous peoples of The Netherlands? According to the modern definition, the Dutch are not an Indigenous People. Neither are the English or the French. But this is of course due to the political factor. They are not an oppressed minority in their own countries.
So let me give you an even easier definition for native: if the language and culture (religion, philosophy, etc...) were developed in that particular area, then you can call it native. So the Dutch are native to The Netherlands, the English to England, the French to France. The Anglo Americans and the Hispanic Americans speak English and Spanish and have a mostly European (like) culture. Hence, they are not native to the American continent. The Nahuatl modern language, the modern Maya languages, and all other AMERICAN languages, originated on the American continent. They are native languages of that continent and so the speakers are, obviously, as well.
It's a lot easier to look at languages and cultures than (merely) to genetics. I like your videos a lot, but this is one of my main remarks: not EVERYTHING is dna or chromosome. Besides, the genetic research is in its infancy.There is so much that we do not know. Especially in the Americas with its enormous lack of data due to the "Great Death" that happened after 1492. It's very doubtful that modern dna can give us a accurate picture of the situation before 1492, since entire populations (and who knows, entire dna lines) died out. Ancient dna is much more interesting but also a lot harder to get. By the way, all modern dna-lines in native americans also developed in America and NOT in Asia or anywhere else. They descend from lines in Asia, but like you said, these lines ultimately descend from lines in Africa. So even according to modern genetics, we are all from Africa but still natives to our continents (again, with the importants side note that terms like Africa and America are extremely recent inventions and would have made no sense to these ancient peoples. There was land and water. Sky, forests, deserts, hills, and mountains...)
I think you need to do a deeper research on what you call Bantu the map you used shows they all came from west Africa Bantu is an umbrella name for assorted ethnicities with different origins some other tribes like m dads tribe is Mbunda and came from north East Africa and many other tribes will tell you the same.
Well, you gotta understand that this is not a video about the bantu migration. That is such a complex phenomenon it would require a video on its own
I watch his videos even the one he talked about the Bantu and his narrative is the same. It’s only complex f you want it to be all if you want go with the out of Cameroon theory.
Yes masamam along with most who speak on the topic over simplify it. Various Bantu people's have a very varied origin. In South Africa some of ancestry comes from Khoi and San peoples.
Yes i was also surprised he put all of us in the same spot, knowing even in the same country we are sooo different, physically and ethnically
@@TigerTiger-cx3ln I mean... as far as we know, the origin of Bantu people is ultimately Cameroon, but there were long periods of time where migration stopped in the east and central Africa (e.g. the Congo and the eastern shore of Africa, which is supported by some southern African tribes having Semitic genetic markers, probably from Ethiopia or the Arab coastal influence).
Similarly, Indo-European people are seemingly from the northern shore of the Black Sea, but many are considered to be native to Europe (obviously) and Asia (including Iran and India), because they settled and concentrated there.
The only time when this becomes an actual issue is when it's politicized. As it has been, lately, by certain jumped-up ageing "youth leaders" we won't mention. But the entire point of the video, in case you missed it, is that this is all arbitrary.
In my opinion someone native is the descendant of the first people in a certain area that have been there for over a thousand years.
Jay T no they really aren't. Assyrians are the original people of Turkey or at least the certain part of Turkey that was part of Mesopotamia.
@Jay T The Turkic language now spoken there is not native, but Modern Turks in Turkey are mostly descended from the native/preceeding (pre-Turkic) peoples of Anatolia (Hittites, Hurrians, Hatti, Lydians, Luwians, Urartians, and some Greeks) that were there before the Turkic invasions from Central Asia (which imposed a Turkic language but only contributed a small amount of genetics).
@@gabinator3343 Modern Turks (from Turkey) are mostly descended from Turkicized Anatolian natives (e.g. Hittites, Luwians, Hurrians, Hatti, etc.). The true ethnically Turkic Turks are in places like Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, certain other parts of Central Asia, etc.
Jay T not true the English descend from the original Brythonic celts with a small amount of admixture from the tribes you mentioned also that admixture came to England over 1.5 thousand years ago so they are native
Jay T The Turks in turkey are turkisized ; not ethnic Turks from Central Asia.
Can you make a video about un-contacted tribes like the Sentinelese people.
Lastly, the only thing that we can say that is not highly relative, ist that humans are indigenous on earth.
Cant wait for his take on the recent study showing Ancient Colombians in the pacific
Hi Masaman, I'm dominican, and I myself have tiny traces of Astro-asian/ Papuan in my native American 23andme results.
On that note Taino genetic markers show up quite heavily in many Caribbean populations.
How much African did u get
@@saulbravo3485 I'm Puerto rican and I got %42 African DNA from various regions including Cameroon and North Africa. %15 indigenous Puerto rican and the rest is various European countries.
@@ANTSEMUT1 Yep I myself am 7.3% (native taino)
@@saulbravo3485 about 40%.. the rest European 52% and Taino around 7%
Wouldn’t the Vikings be native to southern Greenland thus meaning there are native Norwegians to North America.
can you please do a video on the bengali people? I really want to know about my people group. We are really distinct from the rest of the peoples of the subcontinent
Bengali people are indo aryan just like the north Indians and most of Pakistan you are not that much distinct from most of the subcontinent
Whats your opinion about Graham Hancock & Randall Carlson
theorie about a great flood from a comet 12800 years ago?
I recently had my "Twenty three and Me," test done. They find certain haplotypes in your genetic code that are associated to regions or ethnic areas in history. However, the ethnic population they designate to be yours is somewhat arbitrary because of the limited number of generation the test can cover. If my ancestors were Frisian in the twelfth century, it doesn't mean they were Frissii in the first century. Most tests only focus on the post "great migration" period in Europe so an Anglo Saxon haplotype winds up in the UK even though both populations originally inhabited Northern Germany and Southern Denmark.
Upload your DNA file to mytrueancestry.com/ they do a more thorough historical analysis of haplogroup origins through different eras of history. I did Ancestry.com for me and my wife and it was pretty vague like 23 and me is. This other was able to show my wife's Cherokee ancestry when Ancestry didn't. If you pay extra they will deep dive your mitocodrial DNA, X and Y chromosomes. Ancestry and 23andme only do your Y results though the rest is in the file.
@@RPSchonherr Thanks for the info Robert. Using Y marker was fine in my case because I only had questions about my dad's ancestry anyway. I still think the results seem somewhat arbitrary because modern concepts like national/regional origin were non existent and early populations didn't habitually spend their entire life cycles in "low resource" environments that are mapped as part of the results. My point is, if your wife is of Cherokee ancestry, her Cherokee ancestors may also have pre-migration Siberian ancestry from centuries before that I would think are just as interesting and important for your wife to know. By the way. was there anyway to designate "Native, new world" haplogroups from Cherokee haplogroups? I would have thought they all appeared as a distinct group besides a few district South American genetic lines with polynesian/aboriginal influences.
Please make a video on the igbo people thank youuuu !!!
Hey! Question:could you do more irrdenstist videos? For example,mongolia,serb,bulgar.
There is a great Mayan mural unmistakably showing a battle at sea between Mayans and blonde haired blue eyed men. It's in a Thor Heyerdahl book.
Considering that these are islands, they will have very different migration patterns than other places, especially if these are remote islands.
3:10 “As cited by Graham Hancock????” I don’t see why you would add this in to an otherwise great video.
To be clear, I think all area of science need a person like Hancock. A person who had s constantly looking to disrupt orthodoxy and, perhaps, make stunning, otherwise unimagined, leaps of progress.
But outside of Graham and his few accredited supporters (less than 5??), he has never produced the evidence that gain withstand the scientific method of evidence.
He has opined very interesting hypothesis that consistently rely largely on a leap of faith based on an extraordinary claim. THIS IS FINE.
But none of his sweeping, orthodoxy shifting hypothesis has EVER, not ONE, has survived past the hypothesis stage.
His live’s work, to date, has been popular among dreamers and believers in an ancient past that left no physical trace, has used highly selective data (3 pyramids out of 120) and reached claims that, when actually testable, have been consistently wrong.
you give an interesting definition of indigeneity but you should know that 'who set foot here first' is not at ALL how indigenous people view indigeneity. For indigenous people, being indigenous is having ties to the land and waters, intimate knowledge and connection to it-slow gradual replacements like evidently took place in and around fiji where they retained the language even while replacing them genetically would be cases of assimilation into the indigenous culture-in other words since they kept their language and cultural knowledge they are indigenous even if some of their ancestors might have come from somewhere else.
So then the germanics who conquered the celtic british isles and subsequently anglicised the culture, then of course influenced by the frankish normans producing the english we know today would or would not be the natives of england?
If not should all germanic peoples be considered native to southern north europe?
Or must they learn and be connected to the land, like any farmer is by occupation?
Your statement only seems to apply to the Antarctic question, because he gave plenty of examples of when people not just set foot first but settled the place, like the Portuguese on the Azores or the British on the Falklands.
If I were to apply your logic, what about Finnish people? The language they speak is from Asia, but they are genetically closer to their Scandinavian neighbors. There seems to be evidence that it was the Indo-European languages that were displaced in Finland and not the genetics of the place like the Vanuatu example.
Opiniones de JACC's Opinions Finland was always sparsely populated. It wasnt until the 1500s migration within present day Finland started to take place. Finland was also a part of Sweden from around 1150 to 1809. Almost 700 years. They were the same country for all those 700 years, they share long historic, cultural and other ties. About 5-6 % of the natives in Finland are native Swedish speakers. A few people in Finland grow up bilingual. Trying to separate Finland from Sweden in many aspects makes no sense. Let’s not forget about the Sami people who are the only indigenous people in Sweden, Norway and Finland. They came first, way before everybody else migrated to these countries and in fact, they are the only indigenous population across Europe. www.fimm.fi/en/research/projects/finnpopgen
@@AnnaKaunitz
So the Basque don't count? Also, the Sami all speak languages related to Finnish, languages that are Urralic, so how indigenous are they really?
Exactly. I’m glad someone made this point.