Peoples Of The World, Unite (But Retain Your Distinct Senses Of Cultural Identity As You Refrain From Genocide)

I've been trying, without a lot of success, to get a handle on the notion of indigenousness as it applies to persons.  These efforts have led me to wonder if the world's population is better thought of as comprising people (i.e., the plural noun defined by the New Oxford American as "human beings in general or considered collectively") or whether it should instead be thought of as comprising peoples (i.e., the pluralization of people, the sometimes-construed-as-singular noun defined by the New Oxford American as "the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group").*

First, allow me to disclaim any potential suspicions, on the reader's part, of any racist or imperialist sympathies on my part.  I have read Howard Zinn, and I am aware of and appalled by the murders, brutalizations, and general havoc wrought by Christopher Columbus and his cohorts.  I'm against all terrorism.  I'm disgusted by those who would kill for purposes of generating profit, promoting religion, or expanding empire.  Furthermore, despite my name I am not really Italian and, while I'm a huge fan of Verdi's Rig/Trov/Trav, I don't have any particular stake in Italian cultural pride.  I'm glad that Columbus Day has, in many parts of America, come to be known as Indigenous People's Day.

But who, exactly, are the indigenous people?  My dictionary, referenced above, tells me that indigenous means "originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native."  According to this definition, everyone is indigenous (or, at least, we're all indigenous so long as we are within a reasonably close proximity to the place where we were born).  Perhaps I could argue that, under this definition, test-tube babies aren't indigenous as they're born of unnatural means, but I'm no anthropobiologist or whatever (I'm not even sure what a test-tube baby is…a womb's gotta be involved at some point, right?).

Surely the observance of Indigenous People's Day isn't a celebration of humanity in its entirety, with the possible exception of test-tube babies. (Not that such a holiday shouldn't exist, but wouldn't it simply be called People's Day?)  And certainly Christopher Columbus himself shouldn't be thought of as having been an indigenous person…after all, the purpose of changing the holiday's name was to detract from Columbus' reputation vis-à-vis the reputations of his New World victims and their descendants.

So I dug deeper and googled indigenous people.  The first thing I learned is that Wikipedia doesn't have an entry for "indigenous people"; it only has an entry for "indigenous peoples."  I also learned that the term "[i]ndigenous peoples primarily refers to ethnic groups that have historical ties to groups that existed in a territory prior to colonization or formation of a nation state."

This information in no way allowed me exclude Columbus from the rubric of indigenous persons.  First of all, although I'm not really sure what it means to be ethnic, I'm assuming that Columbus, a Genoese, was ethnic.  (In Oakland, California, where I live, there's an Italian delicatessen called Genova, and I can tell you that the people who run that place are a real swarthy bunch, hella greasy too, and they all have super thick accents...not that there's anything wrong with being swarthy or greasy or accented…besides, the greasiness is probably just a result of working with so many greasy, delicious lunch meats).  Second, the Genoa of Columbus' day, though it had been a city-state for centuries, preceded the formation of any Italian nation-state (indeed, it would be almost 400 more years until the various republics of the Apennine Peninsula would unify and become what we now know as Italy).  Third, I presume that Columbus maintained some sort of ties, at least some of them historical, to his Genoese ancestors and their fellow citizens and that most of these folks must have remained based in Genoa throughout much or all of their lives.  And, thus, I continued to be stuck with the awkward proposition that Columbus, like many or most or all human beings, was an indigenous person.

I didn't want to go on researching this shit all day, and so I concluded that "indigenous people" -- at least, for purposes of Indigenous People's Day -- is a shorthand that refers to indigenous people who are not (and who are not related to) people who have conducted themselves in a terrible, genocidal fashion.  I'm still confused, though, as to whether Indigenous People's Day is dedicated to all such people or only to those who live[d] in the western hemisphere.

As suggested (albeit, obliquely) above, my inquiry into who rightly should be considered an indigenous person involved my clarifying whether today is Indigenous People's Day or whether today is Indigenous Peoples' Day.  Wikipedia, notwithstanding its lack of an "indigenous people" entry, confirmed that today is, in fact, Indigenous People's Day and not Indigenous Peoples' Day.

I question the wisdom of devoting this holiday to indigenous people rather than indigenous peoples.  Maybe I'm splitting hairs here or being overly sensitive, but Indigenous People's Day seems to imply that those being honored are monolithic in their indigenousness, that the people being recognized are defined more by their indigenousness than by their membership in a particular community.  I'm guessing that, if they were to be asked, most indigenous persons would much prefer being identified according to their specific group (e.g., Navajo, Taíno, Hmong) over being identified according to their type of group (i.e., the non-genocidally indigenous).  Therefore, I am recommending that this renamed holiday be renamed Indigenous Peoples' Day.  This second new name would underscore the great diversity of histories and heritages among the world's various indigenous peoples.

__________________________________

*Of course, I use the verb "to comprise" in its proper and time-honored sense (i.e., to consist of or to include, as in "the United States comprises California, Maine, Kansas, etc.") and not in its spuriously conceived and new-fangled sense (i.e., to constitute, as in "California, Maine, Kansas, etc., comprise the United States").  While I welcome the evolution of language to the extent that such evolution enhances our ability to communicate effectively and precisely, bastardizations brought about by people's ignorance and blurry understanding rarely amount to useful linguistic developments.  It's true that "to comprise" has been used to mean "to constitute" so frequently in recent decades that this confused usage has gained legitimacy, but this is a fact about which no self-respecting speaker of English should be proud.  It's worth noting, however, that the rampant and obscene abuse of "to comprise" pales when compared to the horror of people using the term "to beg the question" to indicate that a question not yet addressed has been implicitly raised rather than to indicate that some party is assuming, without argument, the truth of a proposition to be proved.