為什么歐洲白人不被認(rèn)為是歐洲的“土著”？
Why are White Europeans not considered "indigenous" to Europe?
譯文簡(jiǎn)介
網(wǎng)友：因?yàn)樗麄儾⒎侨绱恕Ｋ麄儾⒎亲畛醯臍W洲人?，F(xiàn)代歐洲人是一個(gè)被創(chuàng)造出來(lái)的物種。他們是完全取代了不僅最初的歐洲原住民，還有最初的中亞人的嵌合體。他們擁有多種不同且獨(dú)特的細(xì)胞。地球上所有的原住民都是膚色深、有黑色素的人。最初的歐洲原住民是第一批離開(kāi)非洲大陸并在那片土地上定居的非洲人?，F(xiàn)代歐洲人是尼安德特人的后裔，攜帶多種 DNA，其中一些并非人類(lèi)的。尼安德特人并未滅絕，而是進(jìn)化了?，F(xiàn)在有歷史和 DNA 研究證明了這一點(diǎn)。
正文翻譯
Why are White Europeans not considered "indigenous" to Europe?
為什么歐洲白人不被認(rèn)為是歐洲的“土著”？
評(píng)論翻譯
很贊 ( 3 )
收藏
為什么歐洲白人不被認(rèn)為是歐洲的“土著”？
Because they are not. They are not the original Europeans. The modern Europeans are a created species. They are chimeras that completely replaced not only the original indigenous Europeans, but the original Central Asians. They have multiple different and distinct cells. All indigenous people on earth were dark skinned melanated people. The indigenous Europeans were the first Africans that left the African continent and settled in the land. Modern Europeans are descendants of the Neanderthal and carry multiple DNA’s, some non human. Neanderthals didn’t go extinct, they evolved. There is history and DNA studies that now prove this.
因?yàn)樗麄儾⒎侨绱?。他們并非最初的歐洲人。現(xiàn)代歐洲人是一個(gè)被創(chuàng)造出來(lái)的物種。他們是完全取代了不僅最初的歐洲原住民，還有最初的中亞人的嵌合體。他們擁有多種不同且獨(dú)特的細(xì)胞。地球上所有的原住民都是膚色深、有黑色素的人。最初的歐洲原住民是第一批離開(kāi)非洲大陸并在那片土地上定居的非洲人?，F(xiàn)代歐洲人是尼安德特人的后裔，攜帶多種 DNA，其中一些并非人類(lèi)的。尼安德特人并未滅絕，而是進(jìn)化了?，F(xiàn)在有歷史和 DNA 研究證明了這一點(diǎn)。
They are ashamed of their negrophobic ancestors and uncomfortable with their negrocidal past.
They fabricated tools of deception to hide it all like the following:
The “Sub-Saharan” Negro stereotype and caricature. Forget the “Negroid features” of the Sphinx of Giza (Northern Egypt). Forget the racist concept of nigrescence applied to the “white descendants” of the ancient Blacks of Western Europe, particularly in the British Isles.
The false equation Moor equals Muslim. The Moors were the Blacks of the West (Western Europe, North-West Africa and even parts of the Americas). They black up as Moors to this very day to mock their former black masters, rulers and kings.
Thousands of whitewashed fakes and forgeries of the Christian Firsts and saints from early Christianity in the MENA Region and Europe. Orthodox Christians and Conservative Catholics pray to hundreds of black saints, the Holy Moors, from early Christianity in the MENA Region and Southern Europe.
他們?yōu)槟切┏鹨暫谌说淖嫦雀械叫呃?，?duì)那段殘殺黑人的歷史感到不安。于是編造了種種欺騙手段來(lái)掩蓋這一切，比如：將撒哈拉以南的黑人丑化成負(fù)面形象。別提吉薩（埃及北部）獅身人面像的“尼格羅特征”了。別提將“白人后裔”與古代西歐黑人混為一談的種族主義概念“黑化”了，尤其是在不列顛群島。將摩爾人等同于穆斯林的錯(cuò)誤說(shuō)法。摩爾人是西方的黑人（西歐、西北非甚至美洲部分地區(qū)）。直到今天，他們還把自己涂黑扮成摩爾人來(lái)嘲弄昔日的黑人主人、統(tǒng)治者和國(guó)王。中東和北非地區(qū)以及歐洲早期基督教的數(shù)千位被粉飾的偽圣徒和偽造的圣徒。東正教徒和保守派天主教徒向中東和北非地區(qū)以及南歐早期基督教的數(shù)百位黑人圣徒、神圣的摩爾人祈禱。
I don't think anybody is seriously claiming that Europeans aren't indigenous/native to Europe, if they are, then they're not very intelligent.
But it's also quite rare to hear people say that Europeans are indigenous/native to Europe. Why is that?
Well in many other countries there is a distinction between invaders/colonizers and the indigenous/natives, and thus referring to a group as indigenous/native to contrast them to the invasive/colonial group(s) makes sense, especially because the indigenous/native population's are often minorities as a result of the colonization of their native lands.
Meanwhile in Europe, we don't have any colonizers/invaders, the most we have are some small amounts of migrants from outside of Europe, but as they are the minorities, whilst the indigenous/native Europeans are still the dominant majority, there's not really a need to use the terms indigenous/native for Europeans.
我認(rèn)為沒(méi)人會(huì)認(rèn)真主張歐洲人不是歐洲的原住民，如果有人這么主張，那他們可真不聰明。但也很少有人會(huì)說(shuō)歐洲人是歐洲的原住民。這是為什么呢？在許多其他國(guó)家，都有入侵者/殖民者和原住民/本地人的區(qū)別，因此用原住民/本地人來(lái)對(duì)比入侵者/殖民者是有意義的，尤其是因?yàn)樵∶?本地人往往因本土被殖民而成為少數(shù)群體。而在歐洲，我們沒(méi)有殖民者/入侵者，最多只有少量來(lái)自歐洲以外的移民，但由于他們是少數(shù)群體，而歐洲原住民/本地人仍是占主導(dǎo)地位的多數(shù)群體，所以沒(méi)必要用原住民/本地人來(lái)稱(chēng)呼歐洲人。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
In the US, “White/Europan Americans” are often a mixed bag of White/European ancestry and are considered “American” and not any European nationality. Similarly “Black/African Americans” are often a mixed bag of Black/African ancestry and additionally due to the slave trade may have increased difficulty tracing any of their heritage, and again are considered “American” and not any African nationality. So how do you then distinguish the “Americans” who didn't come from elsewhere but are native? You call them “Native Americans".
在歐洲，我們常常更多地談?wù)搰?guó)籍而非種族，而在被殖民的地方則恰恰相反。在美國(guó)，“白人/歐洲裔美國(guó)人”通常有著復(fù)雜的白人/歐洲血統(tǒng)，被視為“美國(guó)人”而非任何歐洲國(guó)籍。同樣，“黑人/非裔美國(guó)人”通常有著復(fù)雜的黑人/非洲血統(tǒng)，而且由于奴隸貿(mào)易，他們可能更難追溯自己的任何血統(tǒng)，同樣被視為“美國(guó)人”而非任何非洲國(guó)籍。那么，如何區(qū)分那些并非來(lái)自其他地方而是土生土長(zhǎng)的“美國(guó)人”呢？于是就有了“美洲原住民”這一稱(chēng)呼。
但在歐洲，我們是根據(jù)（祖籍）國(guó)籍來(lái)區(qū)分的：在荷蘭，我們有荷蘭人，但其他歐洲國(guó)家的人在荷蘭生活，他們不會(huì)突然就被視為荷蘭人，而是英國(guó)人、德國(guó)人、俄羅斯人、西班牙人、波蘭人等等，這取決于他們的（祖籍）國(guó)籍。對(duì)于非歐洲原住民也是如此：摩洛哥人、土耳其人、印度尼西亞人、中國(guó)人、蘇里南人、阿根廷人等等。而且，沒(méi)錯(cuò)，如果你來(lái)自一個(gè)曾被殖民的國(guó)家，我們會(huì)根據(jù)你的國(guó)籍來(lái)稱(chēng)呼你，而不考慮你的種族，所以如果你來(lái)自美國(guó)，無(wú)論你的膚色如何，你都是美國(guó)人，加拿大、澳大利亞和新西蘭的人也是如此。在這種情況下，用“土著/本地”來(lái)指代整個(gè)歐洲人是沒(méi)什么意義的，如果我們特指某個(gè)國(guó)家的“土著/本地”國(guó)籍，我們就會(huì)用那個(gè)國(guó)家的國(guó)名來(lái)稱(chēng)呼。
Well, if I remember correctly, the first ones in Europe were the Neanderthalensis (by their scientific name’s known as Homo Neanderthalensis, so they aren’t Homo Sapiens as us) but they intermarried with the Homo Sapiens so we still have a very tiny percent of Homo Neanderthalensis DNA in us. But then again, all humans came from Africa. :)
P.S. And as another info, the native Americans came from East Asia.
嗯，如果我沒(méi)記錯(cuò)的話，歐洲最早出現(xiàn)的人類(lèi)是尼安德特人（他們的學(xué)名是尼安德特智人，所以他們不是像我們這樣的智人），但他們與智人有過(guò)通婚，所以我們體內(nèi)仍有極少量的尼安德特人 DNA。不過(guò)話說(shuō)回來(lái)，所有人類(lèi)都起源于非洲。附言：另外，美洲原住民來(lái)自東亞。
The oldest living descendants of an area are indigenous. They are the first to gain land title. The Discovery doctrine claimed that heathens were not entitled to this.
一個(gè)地區(qū)最古老的后裔是原住民。他們最先獲得土地所有權(quán)。而“發(fā)現(xiàn)原則”卻聲稱(chēng)異教徒無(wú)權(quán)享有此權(quán)利。
I believe the Sami in northern Scandinavia are the only European peoples officially considered to be “Indigenous Peoples”. However, one could claim that other minorities, such Basques and Celts would meet the definition. In earlier times the Finnic and Baltic peoples could have been viewed similarly, but they now have their own countries.
我認(rèn)為北歐斯堪的納維亞地區(qū)的薩米人是歐洲唯一被官方認(rèn)定為“原住民”的民族。不過(guò)，有人可能會(huì)說(shuō)，巴斯克人和凱爾特人等其他少數(shù)族群也符合這一定義。在更早的時(shí)候，芬蘭人和波羅的海沿岸的民族或許也會(huì)被視為原住民，但他們?nèi)缃穸加辛俗约旱膰?guó)家。
There are number of peoples in Russia that many consider indigenous.
Basque people are also considered indigenous, but Celts are not, ‘Celt’ is an umbrella term for a number of different tribes.
俄羅斯有許多人被認(rèn)為是土著民族。巴斯克人也被認(rèn)為是土著民族，但凱爾特人不是，“凱爾特人”是多個(gè)不同部落的統(tǒng)稱(chēng)。
That’s a very biased definition, associated with the usage the original answer mentioned. If we take it to mean ‘people who have inhabited an area far into prehistory’ then there are aboriginal people all over Europe. Just like everybody else. 33% of my DNA is indigenous to the Balkans, one of the most invaded areas anywhere, occupying the corridor between Europe and the Middle East. Much of their DNA is also present among us, but nonetheless, all the ethnicities there retain a good deal of the DNA found in ancient excavations.
這種定義非常有偏見(jiàn)，與原答案中提到的用法有關(guān)。如果我們將其理解為“在遠(yuǎn)古時(shí)期就已居住在某個(gè)地區(qū)的居民”，那么歐洲各地都有土著居民。就像其他人一樣。我的 DNA 中有 33% 是巴爾干半島的土著成分，巴爾干半島是世界上被入侵最多的地區(qū)之一，位于歐洲和中東之間的走廊地帶。他們很多的 DNA 也存在于我們當(dāng)中，但盡管如此，那里的所有民族仍保留著大量在古代挖掘中發(fā)現(xiàn)的 DNA。
…and European people were/are the ones titling people in other places as indigenous. The whole habit of namings like native, indigenous, aboriginal, are coming from Europeans.
By the way the “Caucasian” (white) people are indigenous in Asia as well…
……而且是歐洲人給其他地方的人貼上了“土著”的標(biāo)簽。諸如“本地的”“土著的”“原住民的”這類(lèi)稱(chēng)呼習(xí)慣都是歐洲人帶來(lái)的。 順便說(shuō)一句，“高加索人”（白人）在亞洲也是土著……
In the Balkans, people fight over the right to call themselves ‘indigenous.’ The Balkans occupy the corridor between Europe and the Middle East. There have been countless invasions. Countless balkanizations where the locals were pitted against one another. They fight constantly over who actually belongs there. They all do. They all have a degree of ‘indigenous’ Balkan DNA. Thirty-three percent of my DNA is aboriginal to the Balkans. And the US taxpayer just paid for us to be kicked out as ‘invading nationalists.’ Go figure. That’s called ‘American privilege.’ Common term throughout the world.
在巴爾干半島，人們?yōu)闋?zhēng)奪“土著”這一稱(chēng)謂而爭(zhēng)斗不休。巴爾干半島位于歐洲和中東之間，這里曾歷經(jīng)無(wú)數(shù)次的入侵，無(wú)數(shù)次的分裂，當(dāng)?shù)厝吮舜藸?zhēng)斗不斷。他們總是爭(zhēng)論到底誰(shuí)才是真正的“本地人”。其實(shí)他們都是。他們都有一定程度的“土著”巴爾干血統(tǒng)。我的 DNA 中有 33% 是巴爾干半島的原住民血統(tǒng)。而美國(guó)納稅人卻剛剛為我們付出了代價(jià)，讓我們被當(dāng)作“入侵的民族主義者”驅(qū)逐出境。真是荒唐。這就是所謂的“美國(guó)特權(quán)”。這是全世界通用的一個(gè)詞。
Different people have different opinions and some people like to express their opinions more than others. Theories…there are so many of them around.
We have had news stories in England not that long ago about the remains of one man found in the Cheddar Gorge caves which sone say proves that everyone in England wasn’t white years ago, it is just narrow minded nonsense. If someone found some ancient remains of someone in Africa and determined that they had been white skinned I wouldn’t assume that everyone in that region was white skinned, I’d be more inclined to not believe the report but if it was accurate that would just mean it was known that there was a person in Africa who had white skin during ancient times and they might even have been a Monastic Monk travelling around or a member of a travelling flying circus.
不同的人有不同的觀點(diǎn)，有些人比其他人更喜歡表達(dá)自己的看法。理論……到處都是。不久前，英國(guó)就有新聞報(bào)道說(shuō)在切達(dá)峽谷的洞穴里發(fā)現(xiàn)了一具男性的遺骸，有人說(shuō)這證明了多年前英格蘭并非所有人都皮膚白皙，這簡(jiǎn)直是狹隘無(wú)知的胡言亂語(yǔ)。如果有人在非洲發(fā)現(xiàn)了一些古代人的遺骸，并斷定他們是白皮膚的，我不會(huì)認(rèn)為那個(gè)地區(qū)所有人都是白皮膚，我更傾向于不相信這個(gè)報(bào)道，但如果報(bào)道屬實(shí)，那也僅僅意味著在古代非洲曾有一個(gè)白皮膚的人，他甚至可能是四處游歷的修道士或者馬戲團(tuán)的成員。
I can’t believe that we are a quarter of the way through the 21st century and people don’t know this ,you should be confident enough to know that White people are indigenous to Europe it goes without saying and there is a whole lot of history to prove it .My question is how do you not know that? There is The continent of Asia is divided into Eastern, Central and Western Europe ,then there is the Far East , Middle East and the Near East. to denote countries to the south .Not to over complicate things but they refer India as the Indian subcontinent. which to me sounds derogatory .It should be called the Indian peninsula which it is.. l hope this helps. I don’t have time but you can Google something countries in south east Asia or Western Europe and see what comes up.
我簡(jiǎn)直不敢相信，我們已經(jīng)進(jìn)入 21 世紀(jì)了，人們居然還不知道這些。你們應(yīng)該有足夠的信心知道白人是歐洲的原住民，這是不言而喻的，而且有大量的歷史可以證明這一點(diǎn)。我的問(wèn)題是，你們?cè)趺磿?huì)不知道呢？亞洲大陸分為東歐、中歐和西歐，還有遠(yuǎn)東、中東和近東。我不想說(shuō)得太復(fù)雜，但印度被稱(chēng)為印度次大陸，這在我看來(lái)是貶義的。它應(yīng)該被稱(chēng)為印度半島，這才是正確的。希望這能幫到你。我沒(méi)時(shí)間了，但你可以用谷歌搜索東南亞國(guó)家或西歐國(guó)家，看看會(huì)出現(xiàn)什么。
Well.. if we go back fare enough, no one is undegenous from anywhere.. except perhaps ethiopians. [This answer is only about the concept of “indigenous”].
Current european populations result from several waves of migrations, essentially east-to-west (from the steppe and from the middle-east) and also back-and-forth north-south, following glaciations. We know that early neolithic farmers from the middle-east-caucasus region replaced the stone-age cro-magnon type “indigenous” europeans. We know that germanic tribes replaced the celtic population of today's Germany: when that HAPPENED, the Celts were “the indigenous” and the Germanic tribes were the newly-arrived. We know that, from the VII century onwards, Finns that lived between the Baltic and black sea, west of the Urals, were progressively replaced by slavic farmers. When that HAPPENED, the Finns were “the indigenous” and the slavs were the newcomers.
好吧……如果我們追溯得足夠久遠(yuǎn)，那么除了埃塞俄比亞人，其實(shí)沒(méi)有人是任何地方的原住民。這個(gè)回答僅涉及“原住民”這一概念。如今歐洲的人口是由幾波遷徙浪潮形成的，主要是自東向西（來(lái)自草原和中東），也有南北之間來(lái)回的遷徙，這與冰川期有關(guān)。我們知道，來(lái)自中東高加索地區(qū)的早期新石器時(shí)代農(nóng)民取代了石器時(shí)代的克羅馬農(nóng)類(lèi)型的“原住民”歐洲人。我們知道，日耳曼部落取代了如今德國(guó)境內(nèi)的凱爾特人：當(dāng)這種情況發(fā)生時(shí)，凱爾特人是“原住民”，而日耳曼部落是新來(lái)的。我們知道，從七世紀(jì)起，居住在波羅的海和黑海之間、烏拉爾山脈以西的芬蘭人逐漸被斯拉夫農(nóng)民取代。當(dāng)這種情況發(fā)生時(shí)，芬蘭人是“原住民”，而斯拉夫人是新來(lái)的。
“Indigenous” is not a “since ever” reality. “Indigenous” must always be time and space frxd and reported to “an event”. The “indigenous” are the peoples newcomers “find” when they arrive somewhere.
我認(rèn)為您問(wèn)題的答案是，我們對(duì)歐洲的人口和遷徙情況了解得太多，所以不能稱(chēng)任何人是“土著”，或許巴斯克人除外。如今所有的“土著”在昨天都是新來(lái)者；在歐洲，我們對(duì)此心知肚明。“原住民”并非自古以來(lái)就存在的事實(shí)。所謂“原住民”總是要置于特定的時(shí)間和空間框架內(nèi)，并且要與“某一事件”相關(guān)聯(lián)。原住民是后來(lái)者到達(dá)某地時(shí)“發(fā)現(xiàn)”的那些人。
I think someone could question the Europeans as being the original inhabitants of Europe due to the fact that the continent had numerous conflicts where certain groups were erased and foreigners dominated for certain periods. But there are still indigenous people in Europe. Most importantly I think is to recognize how the inhabitants of rural/remote areas still carry much of the native culture of the many countries in Europe.
I'd recommend people wanting to know more about the original inhabitants of Europe and their culture to research about Cucuteni, the first civilization of Europe, predating Sumeria, and they had developed their own writings.
我認(rèn)為有人可能會(huì)質(zhì)疑歐洲人是否是歐洲的原住民，因?yàn)闅W洲大陸經(jīng)歷了多次沖突，某些族群被消滅，而外來(lái)者在某些時(shí)期占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位。但歐洲仍有原住民。我認(rèn)為最重要的是要認(rèn)識(shí)到歐洲農(nóng)村/偏遠(yuǎn)地區(qū)的居民仍保留著許多歐洲國(guó)家的本土文化。對(duì)于那些想更多地了解歐洲原住民及其文化的人，我建議他們研究一下庫(kù)庫(kù)特尼文明，這是歐洲最早的文明，比蘇美爾文明還要早，他們還發(fā)展出了自己的文字。
Because, in many casethey are not. But reality is, as always a little more complicated. Indigenous is always a somehow relative term. If we look back enough, almost all populations have migrated from one place to another thus nobody is indigenous. In a sense the populations that you now refer to as Europeans arrived in Europe from the east and, in many cases conquered the land and killed the local population. Traces of this can still be found in European DNA. but this is not, I suspect, what you have in mind. In contemporary Europe there are population that are considered indigenous (eg. The Sami people) while others are not (like the Italians or the French). Some areas - like Sampi the original land of the Sami - have remained for centuries at the margins of major European mix, migrations, wars, exchange, settlements so much so that when a European power approached these areas it was confronted with a difference that was big and deeply lixed with the place. These population “became” indigenous while Europeans are simply not. On top of that the relation with these populations has often been of a colonial type, but that's another story.
因?yàn)?，在很多情況下，事實(shí)并非如此。但現(xiàn)實(shí)總是要復(fù)雜一些。土著這個(gè)詞在某種程度上總是相對(duì)而言的。如果我們追溯得足夠久遠(yuǎn)，幾乎所有的族群都曾從一個(gè)地方遷移到另一個(gè)地方，所以沒(méi)有人是土著。從某種意義上說(shuō)，如今被稱(chēng)作歐洲人的那些族群也是從東方來(lái)到歐洲的，在很多情況下，他們征服了土地，殺死了當(dāng)?shù)鼐用?。這種痕跡在歐洲人的 DNA 中仍能找到。但我猜這并非你所想的。在當(dāng)代歐洲，有些族群被認(rèn)為是土著（比如薩米人），而有些則不是（比如意大利人或法國(guó)人）。有些地區(qū)——比如薩米人的原住地薩米——幾個(gè)世紀(jì)以來(lái)一直處于歐洲主要的融合、遷徙、戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)、交流和定居活動(dòng)的邊緣，以至于當(dāng)歐洲勢(shì)力接近這些地區(qū)時(shí)，他們面對(duì)的是與當(dāng)?shù)丨h(huán)境緊密相連的巨大差異。這些族群“成為了”土著，而歐洲人則不是。除此之外，與這些族群的關(guān)系往往具有殖民性質(zhì)，但這又是另一個(gè)話題了。
Mostly because “white" is not an ethnic group, just a skin colour. There are very much so indigenous Europeans, such as the Sami in northern Scandinavia, the Basque of northern Spain and southwestern France, the Galicians of northwestern Spain, the Gaels of Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man, etc. However, the vast majority of Europeans have gone through many great migrations, especially around the fourth to the fifth century AD. Hence, it is difficult to track where exactly one's family originally came from.
主要是因?yàn)椤鞍兹恕辈⒎且粋€(gè)族群，而只是一種膚色。確實(shí)存在土生土長(zhǎng)的歐洲人，比如斯堪的納維亞北部的薩米人、西班牙北部和法國(guó)西南部的巴斯克人、西班牙西北部的加利西亞人、愛(ài)爾蘭、蘇格蘭和馬恩島的蓋爾人等等。然而，絕大多數(shù)歐洲人都經(jīng)歷過(guò)多次大規(guī)模遷徙，尤其是在公元 4 世紀(jì)到 5 世紀(jì)期間。因此，很難確切追蹤一個(gè)人的家族最初來(lái)自哪里。
ndigenous is a political designation, nothing more nothing less. The SAMI people who are white and have been in Finland/Sweden for less time than the other Swedes are considered indigenous but the Swedes for instance are not.
Look around the world, it is apparent that indigenous simply means a group who has definitely been in a place a long time, is generally seen as under threat in terms of culture, economics and law by a dominant culture and in general that dominant culture oppressing them is seen to be a foreign group, mainly but not always white.
In my view, indigenous is a helpful and important designation for many groups whose lives, cultures and way of life are threatened. As for the white populations in Europe, trust me, they feel under threat from the rest of the world.
If you are in Europe, you will see the demographics in terms of religion, race, cultures and the practices that go with it, changing overnight. There is absolutely no doubt that Europeans have been complacent and just carrying on with whatever their lifestyles have been for a long time and the change is coming abruptly and they are not at all ready nor do they understand the implications for them, their lifestyle and their future.
“土著”是一個(gè)政治稱(chēng)謂，僅此而已。在芬蘭/瑞典，薩米人是白人，且在那里居住的時(shí)間比其他瑞典人短，但他們卻被視為土著，而瑞典人卻不是。放眼全球，很明顯，“土著”意味著一個(gè)群體在某個(gè)地方居住了很長(zhǎng)時(shí)間，通常在文化、經(jīng)濟(jì)和法律方面受到占主導(dǎo)地位的文化的威脅，而且總體而言，壓迫他們的占主導(dǎo)地位的文化被視為外來(lái)群體，主要是但不總是白人。在我看來(lái)，“土著”這一稱(chēng)謂對(duì)許多生活、文化和生活方式受到威脅的群體來(lái)說(shuō)是有幫助且重要的。至于歐洲的白人人口，相信我，他們覺(jué)得自己受到了來(lái)自世界其他地方的威脅。如果你在歐洲，你會(huì)看到宗教、種族、文化和相關(guān)習(xí)俗的人口構(gòu)成在一夜之間發(fā)生變化。毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)，歐洲人一直自滿，一直按部就班地維持著長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)的生活方式，而如今變化來(lái)得如此突然，他們根本毫無(wú)準(zhǔn)備，也不明白這對(duì)他們自身、他們的生活方式以及他們的未來(lái)意味著什么。
There is confusion all over the European continent on the future of the people, cultures, religion and even their security as they grapple with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. While they are not exactly like Nero, fiddling while Rome burned, it is a figurative notion to throw that in as the world around them perhaps is changing more and more to a crumbling.
歐洲人的自尊心也是一個(gè)因素，他們不愿接受“土著”的稱(chēng)謂，而左翼當(dāng)然會(huì)嘲笑他們，說(shuō)他們不需要保護(hù)，而實(shí)際上他們才是壓迫者，無(wú)論是現(xiàn)在還是過(guò)去，通過(guò)他們的“帝國(guó)”。整個(gè)歐洲大陸對(duì)于人民、文化、宗教乃至安全的未來(lái)都感到困惑，因?yàn)樗麄冋趹?yīng)對(duì)俄羅斯對(duì)烏克蘭的入侵。雖然他們并非像尼祿那樣在羅馬燃燒時(shí)還在彈琴，但這種說(shuō)法形象地表明，他們周?chē)氖澜缁蛟S正在變得越來(lái)越動(dòng)蕩。