You're not even supposed to call 'em locals any more. I guess it's "settlers" instead of kama’aina and "indigenous people" instead of Kanaka Maoli, at least in the world of academia.
The colloquialism has been used for decades to convey a diverse array of non-white people...
www.sfgate.com
the "thing" with 'localism' is, imho, we're all born on the same chunk of condensed rocks and water, hurtling through space in the same direction, subject to the same atmospheric issues....
and yet, because I was born on this little chunk of dirt I somehow have "more rights" than those who chose to move here after me?
get out and travel a bit more would be my suggestion.
i fully understand the need to preserve cultures and traditions, but where is it written that only the ones who were 'born here' should?
seems to me, 'localism' should be a little more Bruce Lee, about their 'kung fu', than Old World Chinese. if you get what I mean.
blended, mestizo'd, mixed, interbred mutts is what the world is made up of.... basically.
just because I was born in washington dc, 'our nations capital', does that mean I only have 'local' status there? but wait, my genes say otherwise, they're 65% iberian; so now only the Iberian Peninsula is my 'local'? what about the 6% African? or the 5% Irish, Scotish, Gaelic? and the 1% Eastern European, where's that part fit in?
exactly.... pure breeds were cool, back when they existed. but guess what? mutts is what we are, and we're all the better for it too. evolution, and plain old survival of the fittest, has led us to interbreed long ago, thus providing us all, as a HUMAN race today, with the best of all worlds, soils, breeds, colors, etc...
Localism..... In today's world?