Because generally speaking the later arrivals view the earlier people as subhuman and engage in horrific acts of violence against them. So it's not really that "earliest known people = special." It's more that displacing, dominating, or eradicating a people ought generally be frowned upon, and that's what has happened to many (most? all?) indigenous peoples in places like the Americas, Australia, etc.
I don't have any answers for you about how to test for membership, and you're absolutely right that this particular aspect of the issue is fraught. I'm not an expert but I believe that in the United States at least this question is left to the tribes themselves. ("The courts have consistently recognized that in the absence of express legislation by Congress to the contrary, an Indian tribe has complete authority to determine all questions of its own membership."[0]) That seems reasonable on its face at least, but it does have the unfortunate side effect of recreating the issue one level up: the United States government decides who is and isn't a tribe, and that's just as fraught.
These aren't straightforward issues, you're right, and they deserve a candid and in-depth treatment. But let's not get too far from the fundamental point, which is that it's pretty awful to show up on the shores of a continent where a bunch of people live and then destroy them and/or their way of life.
Many changes in people groups with respect to territory are simply migrations. Is there any evidence that violent conquest is the norm and migrations are the exceptions? My amateur understanding of history and archeology is that migrations are the norm and conquest is the exception (although posing this as a binary is itself misleading because violence is a matter of degrees). Moreover, lots of people who aren't considered indigenous have been brutally conquered, but we don't afford them special status (e.g., virtually any people which has been conquered by virtually any empire).
I certainly agree that many indigenous peoples in history have been brutally conquered, but considering they aren't the only ones and many of them haven't been brutally conquered, it seems like a crumby proxy.
> These aren't straightforward issues, you're right, and they deserve a candid and in-depth treatment. But let's not get too far from the fundamental point, which is that it's pretty awful to show up on the shores of a continent where a bunch of people live and then destroy them and/or their way of life.
Fully agree (who wouldn't? is this even controversial?), but I don't understand the "indigenous is a useful proxy for peoples who have suffered" argument.
Of course it is another discussion completely if every culture is something we want to try to rescue. Right now the general atmosphere is that yes, we do want to try to have as many cultures survive as possible instead of the great assimilation thinking of previous centuries.
Wouldn’t it be all the more effective and righteous to categorize between “colonized peoples” (rather than simply indigenous) and “other”? Or even “cultures at risk” versus “other”? Or do the Inuit have some stronger claim than the Irish or the Armenians?
In particular, doesn’t the idea of legally recognizing “a people” seem pretty close to 20th century racial ideologies (per the parent’s point)? How do we test an individual for membership in “a people”? Is there a one drop rule? Do you have to pass a cultural competency test? Speak a language?
What does it mean when we say “such and such land rightly belongs to such and such people”? Even if that people group was the earliest known, that doesn’t mean they didn’t likely take it from an earlier group.
It seems to me that the entire concept is fraught with the same problems that beset 20th century racialism. And please note the distinction between “indigenous people are bad” and “categorizing people into ‘indigenous’ and ‘other’ seems like a bad idea”.