Europeans aren’t an indigenous people—and it’s a bad idea to want to be an indigenous people. The term only dates to the 1640s, to the age of discovery. It’s a term we used to describe people we encountered on our travels who, as it usually turned out, were very long-settled in those locales. The reason you think, if you’re pro-European, that we should be “indigenous” is that indigenous people seem to deserve our “care and protection” today, so far as the official belief system goes. Ergo, don’t we deserve to be protected as they are protected?
In the first instance, it’s debatable that they are “protected” at all—I mean, conditions in US reservations don’t look great to me. What has happened is that the people who run the West (or staff it and provide the background context anyway) are the descendants of the Conquistadors and explorers who encountered “indigenous people”—but they’re the decadent remnants from those discoverers, from those Victorian classifiers.
What was once a category that was useful to an explorer—to Captain Cook as he charted Australia, to a colonial administrator—has become, to their degenerate children, some normative term that refers to a “good thing”. “Indigenous” just means “endangered species”, like pandas; it’s kind of a cute cuddly helpless thing we want to protect.
It falls into about the same reason European people can’t be subject to “genocide” or “racism”. Leftist ideas understand, emerge from, the presumed and actual superiority of the West—which ultimately rests on our ferocious military capacity, the fact that we could exterminate all people in Afghanistan in a week if we wanted.
The reason we don’t is that in parallel to the development of this absolute military superiority we have also developed a civilisation—the essence of civilisation is non-coercion, our civilisation is completely decadent (and hijacked by racial outsiders to boot) and hence completely unable to act in such a barbaric manner.
Basically, people who want Europeans to call themselves “indigenous” are decadent—it’s the same old cry, mostly from white nationalists: “rights for whites”, “white genocide”, “white history month”. The problem is that these people have bought into the belief system—the system is itself perverted and decadent.
So the system claims that it will swoop down to Bosnia or Rwanda and “stop the genocide”—or swoop into Afghanistan and “liberate women”. In fact, it doesn’t do so—it just pretends to do so, because those are not realistic goals. A realistic goal would be that we kill all the people in Afghanistan and replace them with Mormon settlers, who breed like rabbits and have more value than Afghan tribespeople—from a purely utilitarian perspective.
The American imperial juggernaut doesn’t even act as advertised—the whole “rights for indigenous people” act is no more good for indigenous people than Communism was good for the average Russian peasant. It means Red Indians being patronised by woke ideologues while being given state subsidies and/or tax-free casinos—both of which, to be technical about it, “fuck them up”. Previous stupid left-wing schemes for Red Indians included mandatory boarding schools—which the left now calls “genocide”, but which were, in fact, how the left in the 1930s practiced “indigenous rights” (the left always hollers loudest over its own mistakes).
So forget all that “we’re indigenous people” lark—it’s playing the victim. The problem is that Europeans have lost race consciousness to such an extent, become so entangled in the eiderdown of their rather comfortable, if increasingly rancid, duvet that they don’t understand that the “protection of indigenous peoples” is just the white man’s burden so extended (Kipling was a leftist, we’re just meant to be so exquisitely polite today that we don’t call it “the white man’s burden”, we call it “indigenous rights”). To ask to be treated like an indigenous person is to ask to be treated like a kulak.
Unsophisticated ethnocentric people don’t get that this is an elite game—the fact they want “welfare for our kind” shows they’re not in the elite, don’t understand high-status games. When the left says “everything in the West is implicitly European, we need to foreground and problematise that”—they’re right, it is.
The people who ask for “indigenous rights” operate under the naïve view that the system can fulfil its pledges to the indigenous; and, further, don’t realise that the system is aware that it is based upon European predominance but has recessed that awareness to such a degree that it has lost consciousness of it—but not to the extent that it will always know that it depends on Europeans and so doesn’t need to indulge in “welfare for Europeans”.
You don’t want to be a victim—you don’t want to be the equivalent of a Red Indian sat in some reservation getting a hand-out, with a ring-fenced 13.3% of programming on NPR dedicated to “Native American issues”. People who think in this way about Europeans are so lost, even if they present themselves as macho “nationalists”, that they want to be treated as victims—sweet, sweet victimhood.
That’s decadence—it’s delusion. There is no third party that will come save you, playing victim only works within a rhetorical game that has an unacknowledged premise that the “welfare game” depends on Europeans, who are the only people capable of providing the goods that let you play the game.
Europeans are not indigenous—we go where we like and we take what we like; that is why we encountered people we called “indigenous”, other races being too incurious to move about. We don’t need “rights for whites”, because rights are what you can take, what can be exercised until the state stops you. We don’t need to worry about “white genocide” because “genocide” is not a real crime—it is correct to destroy other peoples, the only thing that causes you to “deserve” to exist is the strength of your armed forces. There is no advantage in playing the victim.