i feel that trying to apply this rigid definition of indigeneity implies that all indigenous nations have the same ability of retainment of traditional knowledge/culture. i agree w you in the sentiment that there is a relation involved w this and the land, but indigeneous (1/x) https://twitter.com/nolanblakeyboy/status/1253113529214828544

nations south of the us-mexican border are not afforded the same situations in which their knowledge can more easily be kept like tribes in the us, i can tell u first hand thru my family. doesnt make their indigeneity less valid tho. indigeneity should be treated as (2/x)

ontologically political/its definition as continually changing as the discourse on western hegemony is improved. tribes in the southern regions of mexico are constantly under cultural persecution and erasure due to lack of mere recognition by the mexican (3/x)

government. additionally, the inter and intranational diaspora that these people face make it hard to collectively pinpoint specifically designated areas of land that belong to different tribes. i think w this therefore, rather than viewing indigeneity as a representation of(4/x)

socio-political group/idea, it should be seen as an alternative to the modernist way of thinking/state of being. trying to apply the previous definition i feel like results in the erasure of tribes that are in constant struggle, and sometimes fail, to revive what they (5/x)

have lost due to the unfortunate political situation in which they find themselves, which is particularly different than that of nations in the us and canada (6/6)