note that none of this is intended to suggest a particular point, i'm just curious how people interpret a term

so first, are the Cherokee indigenous

are Basques indigenous

are the Greenland Inuit, who form a large majority in their region and have control over most of their affairs, indigenous

are English people living in England indigenous

is the remaining German minority in Poland, descended from its pre-WW2 population, indigenous

are Black South Africans indigenous

are all Black people living in Africa indigenous

are the Uyghurs of Xinjiang indigenous

are Palestinians indigenous

are Jews largely descended from families who have continuously lived in Israel since antiquity indigenous

are all Jews in Israel indigenous

is a Lakota person who just moved to Tokyo indigenous

is a person of full Lakota descent whose family has lived in Tokyo for three generations indigenous

archaeological and linguistic evidence and their own cultural record strongly suggest that the Navajo migrated to the Southwest around the 15th century, while the Hopi have lived in the same area for much longer. Are the Hopi "more indigenous" relative to the Navajo

if aliens invaded and colonized Earth, would all humans be indigenous

in the above scenario, would groups currently described as indigenous still be "more indigenous" relative to other humans

if a previously working-class white neighborhood was gentrified by relatively wealthier white people, would the former group be indigenous

if a previously working-class white neighborhood was gentrified by a group of relatively wealthy people of color, would the former group be indigenous

are New England WASPs living in neighborhoods mostly populated by people from other groups indigenous

is the word indigenous only meaningful with a qualifier what region in reference something or someone is indigenous to

if so, is the general term "indigenous peoples" useful at all without an implicit or explicit qualifier

are you indigenous