[Theoria]

'As for the American Indian/Native American, there is no really good term, unless we use the term aborigine, as the Australians do, or Original People, a term used by the Canadian government.'

Even those definitions need nuance and context. Original people and such is questionable.

Does one consider Pre-Clovis perhaps the originals? Clovis? The Western Hemisphere was developed through many different waves of migration.

Just as Europe was migrated from different waves of influence. Though who is considered 'original' in the context of Europe?

It really is a bizarre discussion, pushed by interest groups to secure their own designated degree of being 'special'.

[Cronos]

In the context of Europe, probably no one can be considered "original" except those in the Skye Islands

The pre-Aryan people are probably still the Basques and Georgians, but they are heavily intermixed with Aryanic peoples

And the various Aryanic peoples moved in and out -- Celts, Italics, Germanics, Slavs, Balts etc. and then you have the Finns, Magyars, Turks, Bulgars, Avars etc. coming in with their non-Aryanic mixture added to ALL Europeans (which is why I find the Germanic idea of "pure Aryan blood" silly)

[Cronos]

But in a North American context, we can either just remove all classifications (preferable) or go the other extreme and call people by their tribes — so a Navaho is different from a Pueblo. The latter makes sense because iirc many of the pre-columbus languages are as intelligible to each other as, say Russian and Italian