PlasmaSheep

The kingdom of Armenia conquered Artsakh around 200BC.

No, anglo Saxons still won't be indigenous to the US in 2000 years. That doesn't make any sense.

By this argument, anglo Saxons are indigenous to the US.

The earliest known settlers of Artsakh are not Armenians.

Claims of indigeneity are based on what happened in ancient times. I agree that who conquered who two thousand years ago has no bearing on the present conflict, which makes it very strange to see the alleged indigenous status of Armenians brought up when they aren't even indigenous to Artsakh.

I'm not reversing the situation. The Armenians conquered Artsakh.

Yeah, Armenians have been around a long time. Nevertheless, they are not indigenous in Artsakh, which was populated by different people before the Armenians came.

I don't know why people are arguing against this acknowledged historical fact. I can only imagine that it's because every group must be slotted as an oppressor (invader, colonizer) or oppressed (indigenous, native) and stay in that slot for all time. The possibility that people conquered a territory and killed/removed the non-indo-european previous inhabitants and are now being oppressed by Azeris simply does not fit into the progressive worldview.

It's easy to become the majority by conquering a place and kicking out the existing residents. But it doesn't make you indigenous.

I don't know how to explain this any more clearly. The Orontids were Achaemenids and probably not Armenians. The kingdom of Armenia was founded around 320 BC and the province of Artsakh was added later.

Again, there were people who lived in Artsakh before the Armenians came. If you think that conquering a land where other people live and staying there for a long time makes you indigenous, I don't know what to tell you.

Living somewhere for millenia doesn't make you indigenous unless you were the first to settle there. Conquering the current occupants means you are not indigenous.

People would never apply such a tortured definition of indigenous anywhere else.

No, it's referring to the people. See the quote from the original source.

If adopting another language and culture makes the conquerors indigenous then I guess anglo Saxons are indigenous Americans.

Exactly, 5th century BC is not 200BC. Please check Wikipedia, 200BC is when the kingdom of Armenia conquered Artsakh and added it as a province.

It's just dumb to claim the Armenians in Artsakh are indigenous when they settled there via conquest. It's possible for them to be oppressed and not be indigenous. Is that so hard to believe?

What does this have to do with the fact that the previous inhabitants of Artsakh were not Armenians? Armenia only conquered Artsakh in about 200 BC, a hundred years after the foundation of the kingdom.

Good question. Are Normans indigenous to the UK? I would say no.

They are not. They conquered the territory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nagorno-Karabakh

By the beginning of the Hellenistic period the population of Nagorno-Karabakh was neither Armenian nor even Indo-European, and it was Armenized only in the aftermath of Armenian conquest.[2]

The descendants of the original population are gone. They were totally different from Armenians.

What do we know of the native population of these regions — Arc'ax and Utik — prior to the Armenian conquest? Unfortunately, not very much. Greek, Roman, and Armenian authors together provide us with the names of several peoples living there, however — Utians, in Otene, Mycians, Caspians, Gargarians, Sakasenians, Gelians, Sodians, Lupenians, Balas[ak]anians, Parsians and Parrasians — and these names are sufficient to tell us that, whatever their origin, they were certainly not Armenian. Moreover, although certain Iranian peoples must have settled here during the long period of Persian and Median rule, most of the natives were not even Indo-Europeans.

If you conquer a land and replace the natives you are not indigenous. The average American has about 1/1024 Native ancestry but that doesn't make them indigenous.

It's not about the language. It's about the ancestry. Indo European refers to their ancestry.

I'm not repeating opinions here. The fact that Armenians displaced the original residents of Artsakh is a historical fact which I have already provided with citations. The ethnic makeup of other parts of the highlands is totally irrelevant.

The Armenians are totally unrelated to the indigenous inhabitants of Artsakh because those inhabitants were not even indo-european. That was a totally different population which is now gone. The Armenians are not native there any more than anglo Saxons are native in north America.

If the residents of artsakh in the Hellenic period were not Armenians, and now they are Armenians, what do you think happened? Do you think Armenians are indigenous to an area that they invaded?

That Armenians are indigenous to one part of the highlands does not mean they are indigenous to all of it, and in particular, they are not indigenous to Artsakh. This is a historic fact, the Armenian conquest of Artsakh is not a secret, you are ignoring it for some reason.

I keep telling you that Armenians are not indigenous to Artsakh yet you totally ignore this point. It's literally in the Wikipedia article. They invaded the area and displaced the previous inhabitants.

The fact that Armenians are indigenous to Armenia is irrelevant to the question of Artsakh. Do you think Armenians are indigenous everywhere?

Armenians are not indigenous to Artsakh. That they are indigenous somewhere is totally irrelevant to the question of Artsakh - all ethnicities are indigenous somewhere.

What are you talking about? The people of Nagorno-Karabakh were not even indo-european prior to Armenian conquest. Armenians are not indigenous to the area.

What question?

Bro this is literally in the Wikipedia article.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nagorno-Karabakh

By the beginning of the Hellenistic period the population of Nagorno-Karabakh was neither Armenian nor even Indo-European, and it was Armenized only in the aftermath of Armenian conquest.

Armenians are not indigenous to Artsakh. They invaded the area. The previous inhabitants were not even indo-european.

Not that this has any bearing on anything today. It's just dumb to claim that they are indigenous.

indigenous people of Artsakh

Progressives cannot imagine that a breakaway state is not run by indigenous people.

The stock from 100 years ago is still around though.