I sometimes wonder... Who are the 'real' local residents? Are they the natives or are they those that were born and raised in that place? Who are the 'real' local residents? Because if it came down to it, would non native 'locals' have any proper defense if that area needed to give any defense to its well being. In other words, would a non Native 'local' be defending his/her life in that place or would that non native 'local' be defending the natives and their well being? Who would the non native locals be defending IF they needed to give any kind of 'defense'? And there can be some discussion on the matters of indigenous natives verses locally born natives without having any indigenous roots. If you needed to give a defense for your neck of the woods, who would you defend? Your own ways, the common majority ways, or the indigenous Natives' ways? And if you had to jump into the defense, who would you begin defending? The majority's ways or the indigenous Natives' ways? What if the majority was of different ways than the indigenous Natives and what if the 'non indigenous locals' were used as 'guides' to Native cultures but were not really indigenous to that Land to which they are suggesting to represent? Let's say that if I wanted to 'represent' any Asian 'culture' but didn't know enough about that Asian language to even hold a small dialogue. Would I be a good candidate to represent such a 'group' of Indigenous Natives? So let us say there is an Asian male, let us say Japanese. But this Japanese male does not speak any Japanese, but he is definitely Japanese. Would he be a good candidate to represent the Japanese speaking Japanese persons if that place where the Japanese citizens lived needed some kind of representation? So what would the indigenous 'culture' might have been like? Or are such 'representatives' seeking to preserve their modern culture within those places where the person was born and raised but not have any ties to the indigenous ways of life and culture? To use the example of the Japanese. If the 'modern' culture was 'modern', would their culture be in similarity to the indigenous culture within a Residentialed place. Or would their 'culture' be in lines with how they wanted to live in their current life? Would it be a true 'culture' or would it be a 'modernization of that 'true' culture'?
If this person was a born and raised local resident, maybe non indigenous Native though, would he or should he be the representation to that city? But what IF what he was doing, was supposedly part of their 'culture'? And what if he and his other local residents, whether they were indigenous related or not, decided that their 'culture' was being infringed upon. And so they take action against those infringements. What would they be taking action against? The lack of local Law makers and upholders' ways of keeping and preserving their well being in the ways 'they' do things? Wouldn't they have been the ones who placed such law makers and enforcers in their seats of work so that the 'culture' of the local(s) can be preserved? So where would any idea or feeling as if their culture was in danger be coming from?
