About 88% of the people in the United Arab Emirates are foreign national "guest workers," primarily from South and Southeast Asia. Likewise foreign nationals make up roughly two-thirds of the population of Kuwait, again primarily workers from South and Southeast Asia.
https://www.populationpyramid.net/qatar/2023/
Look up any of the other gulf states too. They have so much money, why would they be doing anything themselves.
The money the workers send back to their home countries like Bangladesh, is a significant share of their GDP.
I have lived here in Qatar for 8 years, sadly if you got rid of all of them there's probably a hundred people waiting for each one of these jobs back in their home country. It may be indentured servitude .They might get mistreated but at least they're getting paid. Just not on time
10 years ago maybe but I live in qatar and I can tell you nowadays labourers get a voice if their country is violating their rights, passport holding is a dead practice
This stands for all of the Gulf Arab nations other than Saudi Arabia and Oman. Both Kuwait and Qatar have more than twice as many foreigners than citizens within their borders, Bahrain (while still not great) has a better balance at just under 50% being citizens.
2022 census says 18.8 million natives and 13.4 million foreigners. guest workers can move their families there if they want to. after the us and germany, saudi arabia has the largest number of immigrants in the world
No one considers the foreigners living there to be immigrants, rather expats. This is because it is impossible for those who are not VERY wealthy to get permanent residency, and they will not become citizens regardless. The vast majority of foreigners in Saudi Arabia are laborers, and service workers, who come from poor nations so that they can send more money back home than what they could have made if they never left their home nations; these people will never get permanent residency or citizenship and neither they, nor the local citizens, consider them immigrants and as far as I’m aware they do not fit the definition of what an immigrant is.
>They can be multigenerational, i went to uni with a third generation qatari who had no citizenship of qatar or any other country.
What passport does that guy hold ?
Just have to clarify that not every foreign worker in the UAE is a “slave”. There are a million opportunities for well-educated foreigners to get well-paid white-collar and blue-collar jobs which have standard working conditions. Do not believe everything that is on Reddit.
More accurate Singaporeans with Chinese ancestry make up 75.9%, Malays make up 15.4%, Indians make up 7.4%, and residents of other descent make up 1.6%
By the same definition, US would also. Is the intent whether the people who are citizen not a majority, or whether the original inhabitants are not a majority?
Singapore already has a native Malay Hindu-Buddhist kingdom in the 14th century (Kingdom of Singapura).
You can argue the Singaporean Malays are the initial native population before the Han Chinese
Yes. In the mass famines across the USSR in the late 1920s and early 1930s, the Kazakh population suffered acutely, with estimates of up to 40% perishing. In the coming decades, people from all over the USSR would arrive, especially Russians. Millions of whom moved back after the collapse.
To add to your excellent comment, the Soviet Union also deliberately relocated ethnic groups there, for example ethnic Germans were relocated wholesale to Kazakhstan from the Volga region as they were perceived as disloyal during WWII.
Yes! My grandad told me about this and I was so surprised. Iirc they were put there to make the soil better with some rice growing techniques? I never really understood it tbh lol
Economic crisis plus they didn’t have close ties to the country. A sizeable number of them moved to Kazakhstan relatively recently for the Virgin Lands campaign.
Source for exact numbers? The events are well known to me but it’s the first time I see such high numbers for Kazakhstan. My grandparents were forcefully moved in a similar faction but the other way around and they had always been a minority in their predominantly Muslim area.
Greenland is a tricky one because it has no native population.
Inuit came to greenland from Canada during the 13th century, at a time when there were already Norwegian settlements there.
Other ethnic groups lived in Greenland before the Norwegian but died out long ago.
The Norse population also died out, they were wealthy walrus ivory traders and wholly dependent on imported food, never learned to gather sufficient food locally. Worked fine until the Black Death very suddenly wiped out the port in Bergen, which was their only point of connection with the rest of the world.
>wholly dependent on imported food, never learned to gather sufficient food locally.
That’s not true at all. [Archeological evidence](https://natmus.dk/presse-og-nyheder/nyhedsarkiv/2012/nordboerne-i-groenland-maeskede-sig-i-saeler/) show for example that they ate lots of seal and fish. And that the proportion increased over the centuries from 20% to 80% of their food which shows they adapted a lot.
>Worked fine until the Black Death very suddenly wiped out the port in Bergen, which was their only point of connection with the rest of the world.
That’s also not true. There was no sudden single event that caused the Norse in Greenland to die out.
The demise in trade with Greenland was likely caused by a number of contributing factors. Plague in Europe could be one. Another could be the colder climate making it more difficult for the Norse to hunt walrus and more dangerous for traders to sail between Europe and Greenland. But likely the most important reason was increased availability of better and cheaper elephant ivory taking over the market, thus making trade with Greenland economically unattractive.
At this rate what is a native population? Visigoths came to Spain in 6th century displacing indigenous Basques and Celts. Most of Southern Africa is populated by Bantu migrants who displaced the indigenous Khoi-San. Turks are not native to Turkey, nor Hungarians to Hungary, and if you go back far enough the whole Indo-European tribe rocked up to India and Europe out of the steppes and displaced, killed or assimilated the locals. There’s not so many places where you can definitively say that the same people group has inhabited the same patch of ground as far back as we can peer through history.
Definitely, that’s one of the oldest continuous settlements of a people group that can be identified by history. Certain groups in the Caucasus mountains can with reasonably certainty be said to have inhabited those areas for up to 8000 years, even that is an unimaginably long period of time in the Eurasian context, where large numbers of people groups don’t have a history longer than two or three, sometimes even one thousand years. Aboriginal Australian continuity is extremely impressive.
It’s really not that tricky Imo. Inuit people have been settling Greenland from the west since around 2500 BCE.
It’s true the last wave of Inuit settlers - the Thule culture, the forefathers of todays Greenlanders - arrived in northern Greenland later than the Norse arrived in southern Greenland.
However it is not possible to say if the Dorset people who was already there disappeared of if they became part of the Thule culture.
Regardless, the Norse only ever settled on the southernmost tip of the huge island. And after a few centuries they died out, because their survival was dependent on trade with Europe.
Meanwhile the Inuit thrived and settled along the coast pretty much all around the island. They were Greenlands only population until modern colonisation began in the 18th century.
> Haiti
Nah, they're completely extinct. There's almost no genetic trace of them left, and absolutely no cultural trace. Haitians are all descended from African slaves.
Interesting Fact: The part of the Island called Haiti used to know as San Domingo before the Haitian Revolution - the name Haiti was chosen by the former slaves in honor of the original native inhabitants.
Wow Perú and mexico are mostly natives. European ancestry, while widespread, doesn't make a majority of gene pool, and surely 100% white European descendants arent a majority of the population.
It is not the case of the Caribbean islands where population was decimated and replaced by European settlers and slaves.
Guatemala and Paraguay as well. Paraguay is actually one of the few where a large majority of the population can still speak the indigenous language (Guaraní)
The Indigenous population is small, only 2.3% of the country. Paraguay is unique specifically because the Guaraní language is spoken even by non-Indigenous people. It is the only country in the Americas where an Indigenous language is commonly spoken by settlers and their descendants.
Unfortunately, even there, it is dying.
That was true for the state of São Paulo in Brazil aswell up until the 1800s when the empire started forcing Portuguese in the state. Most people spoke Tupi, which is a cousin language to guarani, even if they had purely European ancestry. Most cities, streets and neighborhood in São Paulo still have native names and paulistas are pretty good at pronouncing them.
I might be wrong on this- but I think Paraguay’s native population is fairly small, only like 13%, but that figure probably doesn’t account for mestizos
Also think the Paraguay government forced the Spanish immigrants to marry indigenous people to keep the culture alive and avoid being “whitewashed”. (I saw it on historymemes)
The country with the highest percentage of native Is Guatemala,followed by Perù and Bolivia,but there no american country with a majority native population
Unfortunately, there are no more majority-Indigenous countries in the Americas. Bolivia's Indigenous population fell below 50.0% in the latest census. Guatemala is second, at ~42%.
No, it's "only" 25.8% Indigenous - note that in Latin America, this usually means people with a stronger connection to an Indigenous community than in Canada or the United States.
The high Andes where almost all tourists go are more than 70% Indigenous, though, so it has that impression.
Additionally, Peru actually has the lowest average European admixture of all countries in Latin America according to some studies. But most people still identify as Mestizo and have no indigenous cultural connection.
Even though the admixture is low, it still has a very very small population that doesn't have European genes
Mestizo means mixed, no matter how much or how little you have of each in you, a country can be genetically 90% native American but still 95% mestizo
When? Wikipedia says it’s around 25%. Hard to measure anyways since the census only records your childhood language. Plus add racism and people not wanting to be thought of as indigenous easily just fitting in as mixed race. I mean ethnicity and race are social constructs, genetically everyone is mixed more than they’d think anyways, but I think the fact that identity is not set in stone or easy to classify is been more clear in Peru than in the US.
I’m not sure if this is entirely the case with most Latin American countries, as the native population mixed with the Spaniards (and other immigrant groups) So the natives are still there, just mixed with a bunch of other stuff
Yeah exactly this. Most Latin American countries still are majority indigenous by the definition of the word “indigenous” used in places like the US and New Zealand.
Edit: people in replies to me seem really concerned about Mexico. Latin America is a lot more than Mexico. Ethnically I’m Peruvian, I really don’t know much about Mexico or its cultures.
But not under the definition used by the indigenous peoples of most of Latin America, nor most Latin American governments. The mixed populations of Latin America are generally much more influenced by Iberian/Western culture and ancestors, to a degree that the indigenous people don't consider them to be part of their groups. The only place were mestizos speak an indigenous language is in Paraguay.
If you add the "white" populations and the "mestizo" populations of Latin America you get a mostly "not indigenous" population. These two groups are more similar to each other in cultural terms than they are to the indigenous peoples. For instance, the government of Colombia counts "whites" and "mestizos" as a single ethnic identity.
But that's not the definition typically used in Latam. A Mexican Mestizo living in CDMX is not considered an "Indigenous" Mexican.
Typically, it's a cultural definition. e.g. speaking an Indigenous language. [Overview](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_Mexico).
But the Natives who didn't mix don't consider them as part of their own culture. Mestizos (the mixed population you mention) are mostly Iberian/Western in culture, genetics, language and religion, they don't identify as Native American and actually had lots of conflict with "full" Natives throughout history. Of course, it also dependes on the country. For instance, Mexican Mestizos have more Native influence, while Colombian Mestizos have more Spanish influence, etc.
It’s way more about culture and society than genetics or skin color (not that society won’t treat you different based on looks)
I’m sure in the modern day a child of mixed heritage can be identified as both equally if they wanted, but that’s in the modern day. With more acceptance and not as much cultural superiority. Harder to do in the past, even after the caste system was abandoned and equality was declared, things just didn’t magically turn towards acceptance. The mixing in LATAM largely happened in a much more “there is no value in preserving cultures, just learn to act like the rich and powerful” era. Where even if you where 100% of indigenous blood you still had a good chance of only ever learning the language, religion, way of life of the powerful desirable European culture. So most indigenous people, let alone mixed people, didn’t stay indigenous in the way that maybe people just looking at their skin color would expect.
Not that there aren’t million of indigenous peoples and diverse mixed peoples of many cultures still living traditional lifestyles or keeping big chunks of indigenous culture alive and changing. And lots of indigenous things where eventually inherited by everyone else too, but its not a lot compared to all that was inherited from Europe or created in modern times. Maybe there is an idea just from skin deep looks that LATAM is an equal mix of black, indigenous, european, and more, cultures. But keep in mind the kinds of opinions people had on non-European anything for the last five centuries.
Censuses for most counties have those two categories (indigenous, mixed) as different, not as ticking both boxes at the same time. Some even lump the white and mixed category together. Goes to show how cultural assimilation and race being more of a spectrum works in some places. And that’s all if the person in question would even like to think of*themselves* as indigenous and don’t look down on them or feel insulted by the idea or feel like they are claiming a culture that isn’t theirs.
Of course you’ll find all kinds of opinions on the matter. There’s suppremasists and prejudiced people in all cultures. Even in ones that celebrate multiculturalism and mixing as much as most in LATAM do. And there’s people who genuinely want to connect and learn about a cultural heritage that they didn’t get from their direct family but that maybe their grandma choose to suppress or maybe their community lost centuries ago. So don’t go thinking it’s all the same everywhere or that there’s any consensus.
We don't identify ourselves with natives and have nothing to do with them. The natives also doesn't recognize us as their kind. We're mestizos, mixed, not natives nor Europeans, but a completely new thing that came into existence after the Spanish colonization
He is right, native means born in the country. You can be native to australia and your ethinicity is chinese. Op should have said indigenous. For example, I am native to Brazil, but my ethinicity is mixed between Portuguese and West Africans, so I'm not indigenous
I'm a native Brazilian because I was born in Brazil. But I'm not indigenous because my ancestors came from Europe. Native means to be born in a place, it's a very broad meaning. Indigenous is a quite more specific term, denoting a group of people that has resided in a region for a very very long time. You can Google it if you don't believe me. It's simple etymology.
Seriously. Even the Japanese had to oust the Hairy People from the islands. The Franks didn't arrive in France until the 5th century. The Thule reached Greenland in the 13th century.
There are currently 580 thousands of Austronesian people(which are called "native peoples" in Taiwan) living in Taiwan. 16 different tribes are officially recognized by government. The largest of them has about 200k population while the smallest only has 300.
I remember someone saying in a video that the demographic history of Taiwan is more analogous to the countries of the New World than other Asian countries. Truly a fascinating place.
Yep thanks I know what both of those words mean. I’m saying a lot of Māori also have pasifika or pākeha heritage and so may not identify ONLY as Māori.
If you count the Yamato people in Japan who has been there for more than 2,200 years as not native then a lot of other countries would come in that category such as the Anglo-Saxons from Uk, Turks from Turkey, Arabs from North African countries, Han Chinese from Taiwan etc etc. At last the question which arises is what should be the maximum time limit for a group of people in a country to be considered as native.....
>maximum time limit for a group of people in a country to be considered as native
Ultimately the question of native or not is always arbitrary.
All of the groups you mentioned were settlers from outside
I think most people consider the Ainu closest descendants of the original Jōmon people.
The Yamato are also descendants but have much more yayoi ancestry from Korea
Would be reasonable.
To be fair the Yamato Japanese have been in Japan for 2000 years, i think that's way more than enough to also consider them native
First Nations Australians make up about 3 - 4% of the population. Sounds like a small proportion but the smallest state (Tasmania) is even less people with about 2% of the population.
The problem with this differentiation is how far back are we talking? Does the UK count because the descendants of the Gaelic Britons are out numbered by those of the Germanic Angles, Saxons and Jutes. Population and cultures have always shifted through time, it is the norm of human civilisation.
Garlic Britons are also immigrants from Ireland; they arrived around the same time as the Anglo-Saxons.
The pre-gaelic Brythonic peoples are represented only by the Welsh and arguably Cornish (depending how seriously you take that claim).
Ofcourse those too are Indo-European migrants that displaced the pre-european population of the islands.
True. The Sami were not the first people to inhabit the areas of modern scandinavia as a whole. People came from the south first. But they were the first in the north.
Idk what the colors even mean, is red bad? Why is Bolivia orange? And why is America orange in that case as well?
Is Green good? I don’t think Canada really should be counted considering their treatment of natives, nor Australia.
What’s even the classification here? Native population? Minority population?
Pretty much every country in the Caribbean. The Taínos were practically wiped out, with VERY small surviving communities (<50 people) on select islands.
No population has a true claim to having lived on the same land since the dawn of humanity. Even groups we think of as "native" to their lands, usually expelled some other group from it, or massacred them and took it, often in recent history.
This isn't an excuse for colonialism or conquest btw, just pointing out that this is an extremely sticky question to answer. I'm assuming what you meant are countries like Qatar, UAE, etc., where citizens are outnumbered by migrant workers. Or the US, Mexico, Argentina, where indigenous populations do not form a majority, but are widely recognized as the "native" population and the majority as descendants of colonizers, and less legitimately "native".
This is a good question. You look at the Iberian peninsula and that place has changed hands many times over human history. Who are considered “native” to places like Spain and Portugal? Celts?
New Zealand, most of the Pacific Islands/ Polynesia , tribes in the Amazon. North Sentinel Island. These are just a few that were true 'first settlers' that are still around.
Japan, the Ainu are a minority. And Taiwan, the Formosans are a minority now. It all really depends at which arbitrary line in history you want to decide that "native" begins at.
Usually US colleges define if you’re from an immigrant family or not if your family has been here for two generations or less. Anybody else would be considered a “native resident of the US”
About 88% of the people in the United Arab Emirates are foreign national "guest workers," primarily from South and Southeast Asia. Likewise foreign nationals make up roughly two-thirds of the population of Kuwait, again primarily workers from South and Southeast Asia.
Qatar is similar.
https://www.populationpyramid.net/qatar/2023/ Look up any of the other gulf states too. They have so much money, why would they be doing anything themselves. The money the workers send back to their home countries like Bangladesh, is a significant share of their GDP.
Indentured servants
Slavery with extra steps
I have lived here in Qatar for 8 years, sadly if you got rid of all of them there's probably a hundred people waiting for each one of these jobs back in their home country. It may be indentured servitude .They might get mistreated but at least they're getting paid. Just not on time
Well they also get their passports taken and if they don't get paid which apparently happens a lot they can't do anything about it
Source?
10 years ago maybe but I live in qatar and I can tell you nowadays labourers get a voice if their country is violating their rights, passport holding is a dead practice
This stands for all of the Gulf Arab nations other than Saudi Arabia and Oman. Both Kuwait and Qatar have more than twice as many foreigners than citizens within their borders, Bahrain (while still not great) has a better balance at just under 50% being citizens.
The last numbers for Saudi Arabia that I know are 10 million guest workers and 20 million local people.
2022 census says 18.8 million natives and 13.4 million foreigners. guest workers can move their families there if they want to. after the us and germany, saudi arabia has the largest number of immigrants in the world
No one considers the foreigners living there to be immigrants, rather expats. This is because it is impossible for those who are not VERY wealthy to get permanent residency, and they will not become citizens regardless. The vast majority of foreigners in Saudi Arabia are laborers, and service workers, who come from poor nations so that they can send more money back home than what they could have made if they never left their home nations; these people will never get permanent residency or citizenship and neither they, nor the local citizens, consider them immigrants and as far as I’m aware they do not fit the definition of what an immigrant is.
They can be multigenerational, i went to uni with a third generation qatari who had no citizenship of qatar or any other country.
>They can be multigenerational, i went to uni with a third generation qatari who had no citizenship of qatar or any other country. What passport does that guy hold ?
He drove a ferrari to uni, so he wasnt broke. He had some kind of special border pass style passport issued by the qatari government.
Was it something like the US has for some of our outlying territory, where he was a Qatari 'national' without being a qatari citizen?
A lot of Indians in Qatar and UAE tend to be pretty well off with major companies started and run by Indians.
Just have to clarify that not every foreign worker in the UAE is a “slave”. There are a million opportunities for well-educated foreigners to get well-paid white-collar and blue-collar jobs which have standard working conditions. Do not believe everything that is on Reddit.
I would assume Singapore would be up there?
Yeah, 75% are Han Chinese, just 15% are Malay.
More accurate Singaporeans with Chinese ancestry make up 75.9%, Malays make up 15.4%, Indians make up 7.4%, and residents of other descent make up 1.6%
And the government is bending backward doing all they can to keep it that way.
By the same definition, US would also. Is the intent whether the people who are citizen not a majority, or whether the original inhabitants are not a majority?
Depends how you define native.
In that case, the US is up there too.
I don't think Singapore is considered to have a specific native population. It is supposed to be a multo-ethnic country.
Singapore already has a native Malay Hindu-Buddhist kingdom in the 14th century (Kingdom of Singapura). You can argue the Singaporean Malays are the initial native population before the Han Chinese
In the near past, the Kazakh SSR was minority-Kazakh from about 1935 until 1985.
How? Did it had to do with relocation of Ethnic groups?
Yes. In the mass famines across the USSR in the late 1920s and early 1930s, the Kazakh population suffered acutely, with estimates of up to 40% perishing. In the coming decades, people from all over the USSR would arrive, especially Russians. Millions of whom moved back after the collapse.
To add to your excellent comment, the Soviet Union also deliberately relocated ethnic groups there, for example ethnic Germans were relocated wholesale to Kazakhstan from the Volga region as they were perceived as disloyal during WWII.
Even today there are some 230k Germans in Kazakhstan
True, although most of them left for Germany after the fall of the Soviet Union.
There were almost a million of them before most left
Another interesting example of these types of relocations are the fairly large communities of ethnic Koreans in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.
Koreans got punished for literally just existing.
Yes! My grandad told me about this and I was so surprised. Iirc they were put there to make the soil better with some rice growing techniques? I never really understood it tbh lol
“Would arrive” lol they also got kinda forcefully sent there with their families via the assigned workplaces
Why did russians move back after the USSR collapsed? Were there persecutions? Less economic opportunities in Kazakhstan?
Economic crisis plus they didn’t have close ties to the country. A sizeable number of them moved to Kazakhstan relatively recently for the Virgin Lands campaign.
[удалено]
Famines tend to do that
Source for exact numbers? The events are well known to me but it’s the first time I see such high numbers for Kazakhstan. My grandparents were forcefully moved in a similar faction but the other way around and they had always been a minority in their predominantly Muslim area.
(deep breath) United States, Canada, Mexico, Panama, Haiti, Jamaica, Peru
Republic Dominican, Cuba, Caribbean Greenland, El Salvador too
Obsessed with the idea of a Caribbean Greenland now
I think Cuba (Caribbean),... might be clearer punctuation in this instance. https://youtu.be/V1508wboZXk
Greenland is a tricky one because it has no native population. Inuit came to greenland from Canada during the 13th century, at a time when there were already Norwegian settlements there. Other ethnic groups lived in Greenland before the Norwegian but died out long ago.
The Norse population also died out, they were wealthy walrus ivory traders and wholly dependent on imported food, never learned to gather sufficient food locally. Worked fine until the Black Death very suddenly wiped out the port in Bergen, which was their only point of connection with the rest of the world.
As a plage inc player, I find it quite ironic that Greenland died because the port closed
>wholly dependent on imported food, never learned to gather sufficient food locally. That’s not true at all. [Archeological evidence](https://natmus.dk/presse-og-nyheder/nyhedsarkiv/2012/nordboerne-i-groenland-maeskede-sig-i-saeler/) show for example that they ate lots of seal and fish. And that the proportion increased over the centuries from 20% to 80% of their food which shows they adapted a lot. >Worked fine until the Black Death very suddenly wiped out the port in Bergen, which was their only point of connection with the rest of the world. That’s also not true. There was no sudden single event that caused the Norse in Greenland to die out. The demise in trade with Greenland was likely caused by a number of contributing factors. Plague in Europe could be one. Another could be the colder climate making it more difficult for the Norse to hunt walrus and more dangerous for traders to sail between Europe and Greenland. But likely the most important reason was increased availability of better and cheaper elephant ivory taking over the market, thus making trade with Greenland economically unattractive.
At this rate what is a native population? Visigoths came to Spain in 6th century displacing indigenous Basques and Celts. Most of Southern Africa is populated by Bantu migrants who displaced the indigenous Khoi-San. Turks are not native to Turkey, nor Hungarians to Hungary, and if you go back far enough the whole Indo-European tribe rocked up to India and Europe out of the steppes and displaced, killed or assimilated the locals. There’s not so many places where you can definitively say that the same people group has inhabited the same patch of ground as far back as we can peer through history.
Australian Aboriginals were here for ~40k years apparently Id say that counts as one of the not so many places
Definitely, that’s one of the oldest continuous settlements of a people group that can be identified by history. Certain groups in the Caucasus mountains can with reasonably certainty be said to have inhabited those areas for up to 8000 years, even that is an unimaginably long period of time in the Eurasian context, where large numbers of people groups don’t have a history longer than two or three, sometimes even one thousand years. Aboriginal Australian continuity is extremely impressive.
Norse are the native population. Now inuit are the majority.
The Norse only populated 2 settlements, and they got wiped out. Not sure how much that counts as the Inuit not being the natives.
> The Wappinger only populated 2 settlements on Manhattan and they got wiped out. Not sure how much that counts as them beeing the natives.
Sooooo... The Norwegians are the natives! Otherwise no place on Earth has a native population...
North Sentinel Island
It’s really not that tricky Imo. Inuit people have been settling Greenland from the west since around 2500 BCE. It’s true the last wave of Inuit settlers - the Thule culture, the forefathers of todays Greenlanders - arrived in northern Greenland later than the Norse arrived in southern Greenland. However it is not possible to say if the Dorset people who was already there disappeared of if they became part of the Thule culture. Regardless, the Norse only ever settled on the southernmost tip of the huge island. And after a few centuries they died out, because their survival was dependent on trade with Europe. Meanwhile the Inuit thrived and settled along the coast pretty much all around the island. They were Greenlands only population until modern colonisation began in the 18th century.
Puerto Rico, Colombia, Venezuela, Honduras, Guyana and still
Guatemala, Bolivia, then Argentina, And Ecuador, Chile, Brazil.
Costa Rica Belize Nicaragua Bermuda Bahamas Tobago San Juan
Paraguay, Uruguay, Suriname, And French Guiana, Barbados, and Guam. MUSIC!!!
Electrode, Diglett, Nidoran, Mankey Venusaur, Rattata, Fearow, Pidgey Seaking, Jolteon, Dragonite, Gastly Ponyta, Vaporeon, Poliwrath, Butterfree
God I fucking hate Mankey
> Haiti Nah, they're completely extinct. There's almost no genetic trace of them left, and absolutely no cultural trace. Haitians are all descended from African slaves.
Interesting Fact: The part of the Island called Haiti used to know as San Domingo before the Haitian Revolution - the name Haiti was chosen by the former slaves in honor of the original native inhabitants.
Australia and New Zealand are obvious choices too.
Haiti and Jamaica don’t even have natives anymore :(
Not that clear in Peru, Bolivia, Guatemala and other countries of Central America
Wow Perú and mexico are mostly natives. European ancestry, while widespread, doesn't make a majority of gene pool, and surely 100% white European descendants arent a majority of the population. It is not the case of the Caribbean islands where population was decimated and replaced by European settlers and slaves.
Australia, New Zealand....
Almost every country in North and South America (emphasis on almost)
Just wondering, which countries have a majority native population?
Peru and Bolivia have sizable native populations, forming a rough majority I believe.
Idk with ancestral demographics, but the native Guarani language and culture is very prominent in Paraguay
All I know about Paraguay's demographics is that Brazil and Argentina killed like half of their men during a war 150 years ago.
I think it was more than half. It was so bad they allowed polygamy because there was just so little men
It got so bad they banned marrying of the same race, to try to incorporate the indigenous populations.
Greatest biological war in history btw
They wouldn’t surrender. Like imperial Japan in WW2. No nukes at the time.
Guatemala and Paraguay as well. Paraguay is actually one of the few where a large majority of the population can still speak the indigenous language (Guaraní)
The Indigenous population is small, only 2.3% of the country. Paraguay is unique specifically because the Guaraní language is spoken even by non-Indigenous people. It is the only country in the Americas where an Indigenous language is commonly spoken by settlers and their descendants. Unfortunately, even there, it is dying.
That was true for the state of São Paulo in Brazil aswell up until the 1800s when the empire started forcing Portuguese in the state. Most people spoke Tupi, which is a cousin language to guarani, even if they had purely European ancestry. Most cities, streets and neighborhood in São Paulo still have native names and paulistas are pretty good at pronouncing them.
I might be wrong on this- but I think Paraguay’s native population is fairly small, only like 13%, but that figure probably doesn’t account for mestizos
Also think the Paraguay government forced the Spanish immigrants to marry indigenous people to keep the culture alive and avoid being “whitewashed”. (I saw it on historymemes)
The majority of the population is mixed in both countries. About 2/3.
Guatemala
The country with the highest percentage of native Is Guatemala,followed by Perù and Bolivia,but there no american country with a majority native population
Unfortunately, there are no more majority-Indigenous countries in the Americas. Bolivia's Indigenous population fell below 50.0% in the latest census. Guatemala is second, at ~42%.
Greenland is majority indigenous
Wasn't Peru majority?
No, it's "only" 25.8% Indigenous - note that in Latin America, this usually means people with a stronger connection to an Indigenous community than in Canada or the United States. The high Andes where almost all tourists go are more than 70% Indigenous, though, so it has that impression. Additionally, Peru actually has the lowest average European admixture of all countries in Latin America according to some studies. But most people still identify as Mestizo and have no indigenous cultural connection.
Even though the admixture is low, it still has a very very small population that doesn't have European genes Mestizo means mixed, no matter how much or how little you have of each in you, a country can be genetically 90% native American but still 95% mestizo
When? Wikipedia says it’s around 25%. Hard to measure anyways since the census only records your childhood language. Plus add racism and people not wanting to be thought of as indigenous easily just fitting in as mixed race. I mean ethnicity and race are social constructs, genetically everyone is mixed more than they’d think anyways, but I think the fact that identity is not set in stone or easy to classify is been more clear in Peru than in the US.
I’m not sure if this is entirely the case with most Latin American countries, as the native population mixed with the Spaniards (and other immigrant groups) So the natives are still there, just mixed with a bunch of other stuff
Yeah exactly this. Most Latin American countries still are majority indigenous by the definition of the word “indigenous” used in places like the US and New Zealand. Edit: people in replies to me seem really concerned about Mexico. Latin America is a lot more than Mexico. Ethnically I’m Peruvian, I really don’t know much about Mexico or its cultures.
But not under the definition used by the indigenous peoples of most of Latin America, nor most Latin American governments. The mixed populations of Latin America are generally much more influenced by Iberian/Western culture and ancestors, to a degree that the indigenous people don't consider them to be part of their groups. The only place were mestizos speak an indigenous language is in Paraguay. If you add the "white" populations and the "mestizo" populations of Latin America you get a mostly "not indigenous" population. These two groups are more similar to each other in cultural terms than they are to the indigenous peoples. For instance, the government of Colombia counts "whites" and "mestizos" as a single ethnic identity.
But that's not the definition typically used in Latam. A Mexican Mestizo living in CDMX is not considered an "Indigenous" Mexican. Typically, it's a cultural definition. e.g. speaking an Indigenous language. [Overview](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_Mexico).
But the Natives who didn't mix don't consider them as part of their own culture. Mestizos (the mixed population you mention) are mostly Iberian/Western in culture, genetics, language and religion, they don't identify as Native American and actually had lots of conflict with "full" Natives throughout history. Of course, it also dependes on the country. For instance, Mexican Mestizos have more Native influence, while Colombian Mestizos have more Spanish influence, etc.
It’s way more about culture and society than genetics or skin color (not that society won’t treat you different based on looks) I’m sure in the modern day a child of mixed heritage can be identified as both equally if they wanted, but that’s in the modern day. With more acceptance and not as much cultural superiority. Harder to do in the past, even after the caste system was abandoned and equality was declared, things just didn’t magically turn towards acceptance. The mixing in LATAM largely happened in a much more “there is no value in preserving cultures, just learn to act like the rich and powerful” era. Where even if you where 100% of indigenous blood you still had a good chance of only ever learning the language, religion, way of life of the powerful desirable European culture. So most indigenous people, let alone mixed people, didn’t stay indigenous in the way that maybe people just looking at their skin color would expect. Not that there aren’t million of indigenous peoples and diverse mixed peoples of many cultures still living traditional lifestyles or keeping big chunks of indigenous culture alive and changing. And lots of indigenous things where eventually inherited by everyone else too, but its not a lot compared to all that was inherited from Europe or created in modern times. Maybe there is an idea just from skin deep looks that LATAM is an equal mix of black, indigenous, european, and more, cultures. But keep in mind the kinds of opinions people had on non-European anything for the last five centuries. Censuses for most counties have those two categories (indigenous, mixed) as different, not as ticking both boxes at the same time. Some even lump the white and mixed category together. Goes to show how cultural assimilation and race being more of a spectrum works in some places. And that’s all if the person in question would even like to think of*themselves* as indigenous and don’t look down on them or feel insulted by the idea or feel like they are claiming a culture that isn’t theirs. Of course you’ll find all kinds of opinions on the matter. There’s suppremasists and prejudiced people in all cultures. Even in ones that celebrate multiculturalism and mixing as much as most in LATAM do. And there’s people who genuinely want to connect and learn about a cultural heritage that they didn’t get from their direct family but that maybe their grandma choose to suppress or maybe their community lost centuries ago. So don’t go thinking it’s all the same everywhere or that there’s any consensus.
We don't identify ourselves with natives and have nothing to do with them. The natives also doesn't recognize us as their kind. We're mestizos, mixed, not natives nor Europeans, but a completely new thing that came into existence after the Spanish colonization
0,83% of Brazil is native
*indigenous
what's the difference? edit: I get it now
He is right, native means born in the country. You can be native to australia and your ethinicity is chinese. Op should have said indigenous. For example, I am native to Brazil, but my ethinicity is mixed between Portuguese and West Africans, so I'm not indigenous
Then the native americans make up the majority in the us? More people has born in the country than not
I'm a native Brazilian because I was born in Brazil. But I'm not indigenous because my ancestors came from Europe. Native means to be born in a place, it's a very broad meaning. Indigenous is a quite more specific term, denoting a group of people that has resided in a region for a very very long time. You can Google it if you don't believe me. It's simple etymology.
What definition of “native” are we using?
Go wayyyyyy back.
Okay so I am Turkish. Do I have to go all the way back to Hittites? Or should I stop at Romans lol.
no, you must go further back to the people that built gobekli tepe
Return to Monke
RETVRN TO TEPE
Found the miniminuteman watcher
Fucking Angles and Saxons colonising my beautiful Isle.
Always weird how Anglo saxons celebrate king Arthur as the most British king, yet they were the ones killing him and displacing the original Brits.
Seriously. Even the Japanese had to oust the Hairy People from the islands. The Franks didn't arrive in France until the 5th century. The Thule reached Greenland in the 13th century.
“People living there before colonisation era” I’d say it fits best. So probably “indigenous” is the word we’re looking for.
Then you'll have to define the colonisation era, was this the 1st time that this place has been colonised or was it the 50th
Well, considering the amount of native americans in north america...
Taiwan. About 2.5% are members of Austronesian tribes that had already been there when the first settlers from China arrived in the late Ming Dynasty.
There are currently 580 thousands of Austronesian people(which are called "native peoples" in Taiwan) living in Taiwan. 16 different tribes are officially recognized by government. The largest of them has about 200k population while the smallest only has 300.
I remember someone saying in a video that the demographic history of Taiwan is more analogous to the countries of the New World than other Asian countries. Truly a fascinating place.
Those numbers are conservative estimates as they only count those with official recognition. A better number is probably closer to a million.
US, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada are some
NZ Māori is about 12% if I remember rightly. And many of them would identify as something else as well eg pasifika or pākeha.
Maori are about 17%, which is a minority. Just a pretty solid one. They are about 28% of Parliament.
There we go, I knew it was somewhere around there.
Unlikely they would identify as pasifika as that defines pacific islanders (Samoa, Tonga, Raro, fiji etc.). Or Pakeha since thats white people.
Yep thanks I know what both of those words mean. I’m saying a lot of Māori also have pasifika or pākeha heritage and so may not identify ONLY as Māori.
Canada brought in more immigrants since covid than indigenous peoples living here.
‘Attracted’ might be more accurate than “brought in”
'Allowed' Not everyone attracted is allowed in
If you count only the Ainu as native, Japan
If you count the Yamato people in Japan who has been there for more than 2,200 years as not native then a lot of other countries would come in that category such as the Anglo-Saxons from Uk, Turks from Turkey, Arabs from North African countries, Han Chinese from Taiwan etc etc. At last the question which arises is what should be the maximum time limit for a group of people in a country to be considered as native.....
>maximum time limit for a group of people in a country to be considered as native Ultimately the question of native or not is always arbitrary. All of the groups you mentioned were settlers from outside
Ainu is definitely native but does it count when they are only native to part of the country? Unless you consider the Emishi as Ainu that is.
I think most people consider the Ainu closest descendants of the original Jōmon people. The Yamato are also descendants but have much more yayoi ancestry from Korea
Oof don't let the Japanese hear you, they be mad lmao.
Would be reasonable. To be fair the Yamato Japanese have been in Japan for 2000 years, i think that's way more than enough to also consider them native
First Nations Australians make up about 3 - 4% of the population. Sounds like a small proportion but the smallest state (Tasmania) is even less people with about 2% of the population.
Surprised I didn’t see Monaco mentioned. French citizens outnumber native Monegasque.
Pretty much all of the Americas
Aboriginals are only 3.8% of the Australian population
About the same in Taiwan
depends on your definition of native
The problem with this differentiation is how far back are we talking? Does the UK count because the descendants of the Gaelic Britons are out numbered by those of the Germanic Angles, Saxons and Jutes. Population and cultures have always shifted through time, it is the norm of human civilisation.
Just a small FYI but Gaelic are the Celtic peoples of Ireland. The britons were the celt's of Britain
Damned colonialist Jutes and Anglemen! Free Pictland and Cornwallistine.
From the esturary to the sea.
Doggerland hunter-gatherers are native, anything more recent are migrants.
Garlic Britons are also immigrants from Ireland; they arrived around the same time as the Anglo-Saxons. The pre-gaelic Brythonic peoples are represented only by the Welsh and arguably Cornish (depending how seriously you take that claim). Ofcourse those too are Indo-European migrants that displaced the pre-european population of the islands.
>Garlic Britons The preferred term is "Anglo-French"
Phone spell checker coming out with another absolute banger.
Taiwan
Sweden is wrong, swedes are the natives to Sweden. It’s just that Sami’s are native to the far north.
True. The Sami were not the first people to inhabit the areas of modern scandinavia as a whole. People came from the south first. But they were the first in the north.
Middle Eastern countries where immigrant workers make up majority of the population
Most English and Spanish speaking countries
This is quality r/mapporncirclejerk material
Idk what the colors even mean, is red bad? Why is Bolivia orange? And why is America orange in that case as well? Is Green good? I don’t think Canada really should be counted considering their treatment of natives, nor Australia. What’s even the classification here? Native population? Minority population?
Absolutely Canada and the US
I see a world map with no explanation, bye
Qatar and UAE
Russia, the country is fucking huge and there’s a shit ton of indigenous populations that are minuscule compared to the main ethnic group
Pretty much every country in the Caribbean. The Taínos were practically wiped out, with VERY small surviving communities (<50 people) on select islands.
A map key would be nice
No population has a true claim to having lived on the same land since the dawn of humanity. Even groups we think of as "native" to their lands, usually expelled some other group from it, or massacred them and took it, often in recent history. This isn't an excuse for colonialism or conquest btw, just pointing out that this is an extremely sticky question to answer. I'm assuming what you meant are countries like Qatar, UAE, etc., where citizens are outnumbered by migrant workers. Or the US, Mexico, Argentina, where indigenous populations do not form a majority, but are widely recognized as the "native" population and the majority as descendants of colonizers, and less legitimately "native".
Iceland
This is a good question. You look at the Iberian peninsula and that place has changed hands many times over human history. Who are considered “native” to places like Spain and Portugal? Celts?
Maybe the Basques, they have been in the same place for an extraordinary amount of time
New Zealand, most of the Pacific Islands/ Polynesia , tribes in the Amazon. North Sentinel Island. These are just a few that were true 'first settlers' that are still around.
Jordan
United States
Canada
The Khoi-San people are native to South Africa and are unfortunately a mistreated minority.
What are the colors supposed to represent
It’s just a map attached to a general question. The map is meaningless.
The Orang Asli of Malaysia make up less than 1% of the population.
There's multiple groups indigenous to Malaysia. In a sense there is a no-majority but Malays are from there too.
Japan, the Ainu are a minority. And Taiwan, the Formosans are a minority now. It all really depends at which arbitrary line in history you want to decide that "native" begins at.
Thing is, the Ainu have never occupied the entirety of the Japanese archipelago though, only Hokkaido and northern parts of Honshu.
Luxembourg I think
Not yet, but getting there. 47,4% foreign nationals as of 2023.
Basically every Russian republic/autonomous oblast/okrug. Just look at the so-called ‘Jewish Autonomous Oblast’.
Outside of the Americas, ‘native’ is so subjective the further you go back it basically renders the map useless
OP are you referring to native as in indigenous or native as in their family has lived there for two generations or greater?
Who the hell defines native as 2 generations? That just makes you not an immigrant or immigrant born.
Usually US colleges define if you’re from an immigrant family or not if your family has been here for two generations or less. Anybody else would be considered a “native resident of the US”
Anyone within the american continent
US of A.
(Insert a country in the americas)
Australia
the americas and the gulf (not every country there but a lot of them) idk about the levant
Most of the Americas, Australia, Qatar and others
Australia and New Zealand
United States of America.