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.
Agree 100% on the other points.
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.
Only if you essentially consider the definition of "indigenous" to be "noble savage".
Most Europeans are indigenous to Europe.
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.
> adjective
> originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native: the indigenous peoples of Siberia | coriander is indigenous to southern Europe.
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!
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.
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?
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.
There are still many Swedes, Finns, Germans, French etc around.