Wow! We have a thread growing on this forum after a long time. Our last prolonged discussion was on the topic of Burgher or not to Burgher. Please don’t nip it off just yet. I got to have my two cents worth before getting back to the grind. Is if interesting how terms can evolve like living entities. I can not recall a single instance from my Ceylankan experience where the term native was used to describe a person born there, perhaps this is what is in use presently, but I have my doubts. Dictionary definitions not withstanding, native was invariable used to denigrate someone as uncivilized, nonwestern, vernacular or even savage. During the time of the Raj ‘to go native’ was used to delineate one of their own that had adopted local customs, manners, language or habits. So who is a native from a genealogical context? In Canada the term native usually suggest someone from the indigenous population. When I say indigenous that suggests that the community did not originate from another territory (country) or there is no cultural history of coming from somewhere else. From a Ceylankan context that could apply to the extinct Veddah population, whereas the extent communities e.g. Sinhalese, Tamils,Burghers have originated from else where, some in more distant times than others. I believe that Michael Ondaatje in one of his novels (Anil's Ghost?) explores the native conundrum as well. Cheers Rohan van Twest Ontario, Canada.