As far as groups that have kept a continuous identity and language since time immemorial, there are also the Basques, located around the Bay of Biscay. And I believe there are other remote pockets of people that have distinctive genetics in other parts of Europe, but haven't retained a pre-Indo-European language.

The Sámi haven't kept their language since time immemorial, if you base their identity on their supposed genetic uniqueness. Sámi is a finno-ugric language, and that language family is thought to have its origin in the Ural mountains, far, far east of Sápmi.

Now, there are some who argue that the Sámi are in part genetic descendants of Norway's first post ice age Neolithic settlers. There are some arguments from the supposed genetic peculiarity of the Sámi towards this end. But if so, they didn't keep their language and culture, that has origins in the east.

I think those genetic arguments are fishy anyway, it's just a little too convenient for (Sámi) nationalistic narratives.

To be clear, I don't think the possibility that (proto-)samic speakers arrived in Scaninavia at more or less the same time as indo-european speakers, is in ANY way an argument against recognition and protection of Sámi language and culture. That should not in any way rest on some Neolithic blood quantum thing.

In Norway, recognition is based on language, you can register in the Sámi rolls if you speak Sámi at home or your parents or grandparents (possibly great-grandparents too now) used to. That's the right way in my opinion, not genetics.

I think language should not be a requirement either. It's complicated, one can identify with a group despite having lost the language some generation(s) ago.

Agree 100% on the other points.

The issue is that there are only about 30000 Sámi.

That means that if even 0.5% of non-Sámi Norwegians decided to suddenly identify with them, we'd swamp them. With whatever caricatured, romanticized, self-serving idea of Sámishness we came up with.

So I think the three (or is it two?) generations rule is sensible. Yes, you don't have to speak Sámi to be Sámi, but if not even one of your great-grandparents could speak Sámi, then your connection to the culture is tenuous enough that you should make some effort yourself (I.e. learn the language yourself) before you start getting into internal Sámi politics.

> Last indigenous people of Europe

Only if you essentially consider the definition of "indigenous" to be "noble savage".

Most Europeans are indigenous to Europe.

How do you define it? It's easier with Europeans and indigenous people in someplace like Australia. In Europe, many migrated in much more distant history, but eventually everyone there has ancestors from someplace else.

Perhaps it means someone who was there before another group arrives, meaning that the definition is relative, it means 'earlier'. There's also an implication that the latter group has transformed the place somehow.

A similar word in aboriginal. Some meanings include "present from the beginning ... inhabiting or existing in a land from earliest times"; "Inhabiting or occupying a country before the arrival of European colonists"; "the earliest known inhabitants of a land"; etc.

> indigenous | ɪnˈdɪdʒɪnəs |

> adjective

> originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native: the indigenous peoples of Siberia | coriander is indigenous to southern Europe.

That doesn't address the issues? Obviously from the GP, I checked out a dictionary already.

I think it's a pointless exercise. European ethnicities are indigenous to various parts of Europe, Scandinavians are indigenous to Scandinavia, Sami indigenous to Northern Scandinavia, and so on. They are all indigenous in the proper context, it's not some exclusionary label.

The Sami count as indigenous because they're not a majority in their ancestral lands. I don't think anyone is trying to dispute that Germmanic peoples are native to northern Germany and southern Scandinavia.

I'm not disputing the fact that Sami are indigenous to the place they live (most humans are), I'm disputing this weird definition of indigenous which seems to align more to the noble savage concept than the actual meaning of indigenous.

Secondly, if you want to segment the world into mutually exclusive "indigenous" areas (I find this kind of offensive to be honest), you should make sure you're actually right. Germanic peoples were present in all of Scandinavia before the Sami migrated there, not just the south. But like I said, I have no problem saying the Sami are indigenous to Northern Scandinavia because being indigenous to an area is not an exclusionary label.

It's litterally the definition that is used to justify the classification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples#United_Nati...

Long story short: If an ethnic group is a majority, it's not going to be recognized as indigenous. EWe can argue about the definition as much as we like, and you're absolutely right re. the Germanic peoples having lived in the Nordics for longer than the Finnic ones have, but for all practical intents and purposes, governments, and international organizations will consider the Sami indigenous.

> if you want to segment the world into mutually exclusive "indigenous" areas

I think that's taking the conversation to an extreme, and then finding offense in the extreme you created.

> I find this kind of offensive to be honest

How does it offend you?

> I think it's a pointless exercise.

You raised the issue! But that's always an answer, to dismiss everything. Clearly there are differences between those examples. Oh well. Have a good one!

> Last indigenous people of Europe

There are still many Swedes, Finns, Germans, French etc around.

Maybe a better term would be "last nomadic people", but then that would ignore the Roma, Irish Travellers, and the like.

Most Sámi are not reindeer herders, and thus are no more nomadic than your average Norwegian. Even going back hundreds of years, many Sámi were primarily fishermen and didn't travel much.

Even as rain deer herders they are not nomadic. They have summer and winter residence. They have static villages, fences for their rain deers, etc.

I am not sure what you mean about static fences? Reindeer is semi-wild. They gather them for sure (with helicopters and stuff these days), but outside that the reindeers basically go anywhere they want. Yes, they have ”areas” where they should be, but they are, as mentioned semi-wild animals. I have cottage in Lapland and it is very common to see them on my property almost daily. I like it, but I understand locals do not like it that much, as basically they eat everything you want to grow for yourself (and at north, it is already hard to grow anything).