Quote:
Originally Posted by Tropo-Bob
Well actually it doesn't. Being indigenous means taking on features that are specific to that area. Think of it this way, dingos are indigenous to Australia, but dogs are not. It doesn't matter if the European-bred dogs were here before 1901, they have not taken on significant features that makes them notable to this area.
|
Pretty sure dogs are not aware of federation.
But we'll go with your example. The dingo came over from Indonesia. Best guess is a few thousand years ago. They are in every way a dog, except for the bark (which the common dog ancestor wolf also does not do). Is there any proof that they changed after arrival due to features of the area? By that logic, the Blue Healer is indigenous, as are other Australian bred dogs, who were selectively bred for use in the Australian environment.
The Maori may not be the original inhabitants of NZ. They settled roughly 1250-1300AD. This wasn't long before Christopher Colombus showed up in the new world. So are the Maori indigenous? If so, given the timescale, are the first pilgrims to New England also indigenous?
It's a very unclear, arbitrary and very political attribute. This kind of thing is yet another reason why racist discrimination is a horrible thing for any government to tolerate, let alone embrace. Our government sanctions, embraces, and funds racial discrimination. And they are proud of it.