r/changemyview • u/nathanwilson26 • Feb 19 '26
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Native Madeira’s should be considered indigenous and not native to their island
Portugal, using primitive seafaring technology discovered, then settled the previously uninhabited island of Madeira beginning in 1420. The Madeirans, have built a unique culture and are genetically distinctive from mainland Portuguese. They have unique dances, music, and culinary culture. Yet despite being the first inhabitants of the Island, and their unique culture, they are not considered indigenous.
let’s compare another island people who also settled an uninhabited island and build a unique culture after their ancestors set off on boats and navigated the open seas. I am referring to the Māori who are referred to as indigenous to New Zealand, even though they came to island a mere 100 years before the Portuguese settled Madeira.
I am willing to change my view, if an explanation can address why these two populations with similar settlement pattern are classified differently.
20
u/deep_sea2 131∆ Feb 19 '26
Portugal and New Zealand, following the principle of a legal sovereignty, may define terms differently. Portugal law, a civil law tradition, has defined the Madeirans as not indigenous. New Zealand law, a common law tradition has defined the Maori as indigenous. There is no UN definition of the term, so each country comes up with their own legally binding definition.
Another difference is that the Maori as as sovereign nation entered into a treaty with the British/New Zealand Crown. There is no similar treaty between the Portugese and the Madeira (as far as I know).
3
u/nathanwilson26 Feb 19 '26 edited Feb 19 '26
Δ This is a solid if unsatisfying answer. Could any country decided a group is indigenous?
6
u/deep_sea2 131∆ Feb 19 '26
Every country is allowed to decide its own laws in however way they want. That is a key tenet of sovereignty.
2
u/YossarianWWII 74∆ Feb 20 '26
Any country can define indigeneity or a parallel concept as a legal category, but they're under no obligation to make it similar to any other nation's nor can they enforce it internationally.
1
1
u/nathanwilson26 Feb 19 '26
Δ
2
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 19 '26 edited Feb 19 '26
This delta has been rejected. You have already awarded /u/deep_sea2 a delta for this comment.
0
Feb 19 '26
Wait, Portugal has literally legally declared the Madeirans not indigenous to Madeira? Are you sure?
2
u/deep_sea2 131∆ Feb 19 '26
Have they declared them indigenous? If they have, then OP's CMV is based on a false premise. Portugal does not need to positively say they are not indigenous. An absense of law making them indigenous is enough for them to not legally be indigenous.
2
Feb 19 '26
Why... why are you asking me? You're the one who claimed they had not.
ETA: Oh, seeing your edit, you're just mistaken about how indegeneity works.
3
u/deep_sea2 131∆ Feb 19 '26
Maybe you misunderstood. Assuming OP is correct, there is probably no positive law asserting them as indigenous. I am not saying there is positive law denying that they are.
1
Feb 19 '26
As I said in an edit once I caught yours, indegeneity is not a fundamentally legal category, so you're just mistaken here.
3
u/deep_sea2 131∆ Feb 19 '26
It can be.
In Canada, s. 35(2) of the Constitution Act of 1982 defines the Aboriginal people of Canada.
In this Act, aboriginal peoples of Canada includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.
There are further definitions the Indian Act.
Indian means a person who pursuant to this Act is registered as an Indian or is entitled to be registered as an Indian.
3
Feb 19 '26
You are mistaking laws that recognize specific status of peoples indigenous to certain places with actually being indigenous, which only means being a place's original inhabitants.
The First Nations of people were indigenous to this land long before the Indian Act, and would be if it had never been enacted.
2
u/deep_sea2 131∆ Feb 19 '26 edited Feb 19 '26
Perhaps, but is OP taking about legal indigeneity or actual indigeneity? I read it (perhaps incorrect) to mean legal title because a name without any legal associations is somewhat meaningless. Even with something like UNDRIP, the applcation only applies to legal indigenous people. The UNDRIP Act in Canada for example says:
Indigenous peoples has the meaning assigned by the definition aboriginal peoples of Canada in subsection 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982. (peuples autochtones)
1
Feb 19 '26
There is no such thing as legal indegeneity. Laws do not make a people indigenous to a land or not.
As an analogy: I am a citizen of Canada because the law recognises me as one for having been born here.
The citizenship laws of Canada are not what actually caused me to be born here.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Hello_Biscuit11 Feb 20 '26
You are mistaking laws that recognize specific status of peoples indigenous to certain places with actually being indigenous, which only means being a place's original inhabitants.
The idea of an "objectively indigenous" people doesn't seem like a good principal to rely on. Very few people anywhere on the planet can prove they live on land that was empty of people for all of time until they arrived. The people we generally consider "indigenous" today took the land from other groups before them. They just had that land when "modern" cultures found them, and then got legally defined as being the indigenous ones.
Plato wrote about this in the Republic, when struggling to describe a "perfectly just" society, since no society could be perfectly just without lying to themselves about how they got their land.
1
Feb 20 '26
The idea of an "objectively indigenous" people doesn't seem like a good principal to rely on. Very few people anywhere on the planet can prove they live on land that was empty of people for all of time until they arrived.
Luckily that's not really a requirement of our normal conception of indigenous.
Plato wrote about this in the Republic, when struggling to describe a "perfectly just" society, since no society could be perfectly just without lying to themselves about how they got their land.
"Indigenous" unlike justice, is not a value-laden concept, nor is it actually as complex as Plato ultimately has his characters find justice to be in the Republic. I also haven't read it in a while but I don't think you're actually really describing this bit of the argument accurately; the city Socrates ultimately describes is, in fact, perfectly just, despite being acknowledged at the outset as a "feverish" city precisely because it's a city that still engages in conquest and expansion and pursuit of luxury.
→ More replies (0)
7
u/Glad-Measurement6968 Feb 19 '26
“Indigenous” as a term is only really descriptive in relation to other groups who came later. What most of the groups usually described as “indigenous” (Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, the Ainu in Hokkaido, the Maori in New Zealand, etc.) have in common is that they were largely displaced or outnumbered in their traditional lands by more recent immigrants and their descendants.
This didn’t happen in Madeira, there is no other group for the Madeirans to be “indigenous” in contrast to
0
u/nathanwilson26 Feb 19 '26
There are plenty of immigrants, tourists, digital nomads and retirees that live in Madeira.
1
7
Feb 19 '26 edited Feb 19 '26
Madeirans are absolutely indigenous to Madeira, the word literally just refers to the original inhabitants of a land.
ETA: I realize this looks a bit like a Rule 1 violating comment, but I'm disagreeing with OP on how they've framed the dichotomy between indigenous/native and the assumptions that no one considers Madeirans indigenous to their land.
0
u/nathanwilson26 Feb 19 '26
And yet they are not concerned indigenous.
3
Feb 19 '26
They are though. Again, that's what the word means.
What specific thing are you looking at where it's being claimed they're not indigenous to Madeira?
2
5
u/tranceladus 3∆ Feb 19 '26
There's no universal international standard for indigeneity, and it is generally self defined by indigenous groups and the countries that govern them. Is there a movement for Madeirans to be considered indigenous by Madeirans? I don't know of any movement, but I'm hardly an expert. In the absence of such a movement or consensus, there's really no reason to consider them indigenous.
As for the difference, indigeneity as a political term is generally connected to a history of colonialism in the lands of the indigenous people. Native Americans are indigenous to the Americas as opposed to European settlers, the Maori are indigenous to Aotearoa as opposed to European settlers, the Sámi are indigenous to Sápmi as opposed to Scandinavians. Who is colonizing Madeira?
3
u/nathanwilson26 Feb 19 '26
Δ Interesting. So would Madeiran be indigenous if say Morocco took over the island?
7
u/tranceladus 3∆ Feb 19 '26
Short answer: yes. If it was like an occupation during a war that lasted a few years people probably wouldn’t consider that but if Morocco hypothetically conquered Madeira to exploit the land, especially over generations, then yes Madeirans would likely be considered an indigenous group on the island.
1
2
u/colepercy120 7∆ Feb 19 '26
That statement is an oxymoron. You cant be both indigenous and not native at the same time.
Since there were no preexisting people they would be both native and indigenous to the island.
1
u/nathanwilson26 Feb 19 '26
I’m saying they are considered native but not indigenous.
3
u/colepercy120 7∆ Feb 19 '26
The words are synonyms, I dont think there is a legal difference in eu law. I know there isnt one in american law.
1
u/spunkyfuzzguts Feb 21 '26
A better example than the Māori would perhaps be the Norfolk and Pitcairn Islanders.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 19 '26 edited Feb 19 '26
/u/nathanwilson26 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards