When the Dutch colonized South Africa, they ere the first humans to go to Capetown. Aren't the Dutch then the indigenous or native people to that area in much the same way that those who entered North and South America over the Siberian land bridge, indigenous to those areas?
Indigenous in the context of anthropology (which is listed in your dictionary definitions) means first humans to occupy the land.
There are many areas of North and South America where the first humans to occupy the land were from Europe, not Asia.
You’re doing what liberals always do. Redefine the language to suit yourself.
No. You have bought into the construct that Europeans are occupying native lands. Sort of a territorial imperative. Just like we are a nation of immigrants. Who got there first imbues the "native/indigenous" people with certain rights and the moral high ground. We owe them something regardless of how much time elapses. There were warring tribes long before the Europeans got here. They seized one anothers territory.
BTW - by your definition Europeans are Asians since the vast majority of the European gene pool migrated out of Asia.
My definition? I don't recognize "native/indigenous" people. but rather, an earlier wave of migrants.
There's no such thing as a 'pure' European—or anyone else.
