I think that would incorporate a whole lot of people that we don't normally consider "indigenous". Moreover, in some cases indigenous people haven't been fully replaced. It also doesn't clear up the confusion about "what is a people" and "how do you test for individual membership in a given people group?". And what about the "land ownership" inferences that we usually hang off of "indigenous". If Native Americans take back Ohio, does that make non-Native-American Ohioans "indigenous"? This example is admittedly contrived, but the whole concept feels contrived to me.

I suppose I could clarify to "replaced as the majority 'people'”. I agree with you on every point though. I have a lot of sympathy for people who feel displaced or disinherited, or end up a lower-class citizen by virtue of something that ultimately comes down to clearly genetic differences with the society in which they live. I think it's ultimately meaningless to say that someone whose ancestors lived in Europe in 1400 is an invader and someone whose ancestors at the same time were living in the Americas and had far fewer immunities is necessarily a victim of same. Nor is the converse necessarily true, but the whole thing is a big fucking mess.

> the whole thing is a big fucking mess.

Well said.

IIRC Aztecs constantly replaced people in adjacent territories (and vice versa), does that mean some are more indigenous than others?