Native-Land.ca – Our home on native land(native-land.ca)
native-land.ca
Native-Land.ca – Our home on native land
https://native-land.ca/
121 comments
I think you don't see a lot of this in Europe, Africa, or Asia because 'indigenous' in this context implies that the people who were there 'first' have been replaced by people who came from somewhere else. In Europe especially, this mostly happened before recorded history, and the borders of cultures and nations have changed so many times since then, it's hard to point to any one group as 'indigenous' in those areas.
In Africa, while there was a lot of colonization, in most places the indigenous people were not displaced (and replaced) to the extent that they were in Europe, Australia, or the Americas, so whoever built this map has probably not spent as much time documenting them.
And finally, I put quotes around 'indigenous' and 'first', because for the most part this is a map of the groups of people who were most recently replaced; before the map of tribes in the Americas you see in the link, there were larger cultures/empires that rose and fell (Inca, Aztec, Maya, Mississippian, etc).
In Africa, while there was a lot of colonization, in most places the indigenous people were not displaced (and replaced) to the extent that they were in Europe, Australia, or the Americas, so whoever built this map has probably not spent as much time documenting them.
And finally, I put quotes around 'indigenous' and 'first', because for the most part this is a map of the groups of people who were most recently replaced; before the map of tribes in the Americas you see in the link, there were larger cultures/empires that rose and fell (Inca, Aztec, Maya, Mississippian, etc).
> In Africa, while there was a lot of colonization, in most places the indigenous people were not displaced (and replaced) to the extent that they were in Europe, Australia, or the Americas
The latest genetic evidence suggests there was actually a very high level of replacement of the indigenous inhabitants of a large part of central/southern Africa, e.g.
Despite a gap of 5,000 years in some cases, all four of the children’s genomes were remarkably similar to one another. But compared with the DNA of modern Africans, their genomes were more closely related to those of the hunter-gatherer groups in west central Africa that are sometimes known as Pygmies than they were to those of contemporary Cameroonians or other Bantu-speaking populations.
The researchers also used the genomes to understand even older events in human history. The four children seem to descend from a group of Homo sapiens that branched off from the common ancestors of our species more than 200,000 years ago — perhaps even earlier than the ancestors of distinct Indigenous southern African groups known collectively as Khoesan peoples. Previous studies of modern human genomes had suggested that these groups descended from the oldest distinct lineage of Homo sapiens. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00167-5
So populations who'd been living in Africa for 200k years were displaced and replaced just recently, in fact the tale seems quite familiar - original hunter gatherer populations replaced by agriculturalists. Europe and Asia are much the same, nearly everywhere.
The latest genetic evidence suggests there was actually a very high level of replacement of the indigenous inhabitants of a large part of central/southern Africa, e.g.
Despite a gap of 5,000 years in some cases, all four of the children’s genomes were remarkably similar to one another. But compared with the DNA of modern Africans, their genomes were more closely related to those of the hunter-gatherer groups in west central Africa that are sometimes known as Pygmies than they were to those of contemporary Cameroonians or other Bantu-speaking populations.
The researchers also used the genomes to understand even older events in human history. The four children seem to descend from a group of Homo sapiens that branched off from the common ancestors of our species more than 200,000 years ago — perhaps even earlier than the ancestors of distinct Indigenous southern African groups known collectively as Khoesan peoples. Previous studies of modern human genomes had suggested that these groups descended from the oldest distinct lineage of Homo sapiens. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00167-5
So populations who'd been living in Africa for 200k years were displaced and replaced just recently, in fact the tale seems quite familiar - original hunter gatherer populations replaced by agriculturalists. Europe and Asia are much the same, nearly everywhere.
> In Africa, while there was a lot of colonization, in most places the indigenous people were not displaced (and replaced) to the extent that they were in Europe, Australia, or the Americas
Huh? The Bantu expansion mostly happened well within what in the rest of the world is the historical period. The people the ancient Egyptians documented to their south do not exist today. The replacement of the population of South Africa was late enough that it happened under white rule.
There was no phase where African people were replaced by Europeans, but that's not at all the same question.
Huh? The Bantu expansion mostly happened well within what in the rest of the world is the historical period. The people the ancient Egyptians documented to their south do not exist today. The replacement of the population of South Africa was late enough that it happened under white rule.
There was no phase where African people were replaced by Europeans, but that's not at all the same question.
> In Africa, while there was a lot of colonization, in most places the indigenous people were not displaced (and replaced) to the extent that they were in Europe
No, the Bantu expansion was mass genocide on a continental scale. The bulk of africa was previously populated by brown skinned people and pygmies, not by Bantus, who originated in the west Niger delta. From that delta, they exploded, exterminating the rest of south saharan Africa. Most of the natives were killed but some were enslaved and kept as food - an entire continent genocided, with many tribes eaten to extinction.
You can see evidence of this with DNA studies and by the fact that virtually all the brownskinned people or pygmies are gone. Sub-saharan africa is now a black skinned continent inhabited primarily by Bantus, when it was previously a heterogeneous continent with black and brown skinned people as well as pygmies.
It may have taken more time than the European conquest of America, but it was much more bloody.
No, the Bantu expansion was mass genocide on a continental scale. The bulk of africa was previously populated by brown skinned people and pygmies, not by Bantus, who originated in the west Niger delta. From that delta, they exploded, exterminating the rest of south saharan Africa. Most of the natives were killed but some were enslaved and kept as food - an entire continent genocided, with many tribes eaten to extinction.
You can see evidence of this with DNA studies and by the fact that virtually all the brownskinned people or pygmies are gone. Sub-saharan africa is now a black skinned continent inhabited primarily by Bantus, when it was previously a heterogeneous continent with black and brown skinned people as well as pygmies.
It may have taken more time than the European conquest of America, but it was much more bloody.
> Most of the natives were killed but some were enslaved and kept as food
It should be noted that the pygmies are generally in a symbiotic relationship with the Bantu today - competition between the groups is limited by the fact that the pygmies inhabit non-arable land.
This would have been different when the Bantus arrived, of course.
It should be noted that the pygmies are generally in a symbiotic relationship with the Bantu today - competition between the groups is limited by the fact that the pygmies inhabit non-arable land.
This would have been different when the Bantus arrived, of course.
> In Africa, while there was a lot of colonization, in most places the indigenous people were not displaced (and replaced) to the extent that they were in Europe, Australia, or the Americas, so whoever built this map has probably not spent as much time documenting them.
The Arab conquests of North Africa would like to question this.
The Arab conquests of North Africa would like to question this.
Not necessarily from a genetic perspective, North Africa is predominantly Amazigh genetically (and Copt in Egypt), however much people may identify as Arab[0] culturally, and have been there since before recorded history.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_North_Afric...
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_North_Afric...
Part of the issue is Asia, Africa and so on do less indigenous studies. Some of that may be due to less interest in who the previous occupiers were. That said, there are ample maps showing migrations and settlement patterns through history of Europe and the Middle East in particular usually in rough slices of time but aren't represented here. The black sea area and the Middle East had lots and lots of turnover as there were movements and conquests after conquests and movements.
One reason not to include them on the map is that would illustrate the nature of waves and conquests thought-out the ages until relatively recently when territories congealed. however, this would undermine the notion that the Americas had little turnover of land control and that there was less intertribal warfare and that extra continental conquests are different.
One reason not to include them on the map is that would illustrate the nature of waves and conquests thought-out the ages until relatively recently when territories congealed. however, this would undermine the notion that the Americas had little turnover of land control and that there was less intertribal warfare and that extra continental conquests are different.
> This map is cool, but I'm still embarrassed to say I don't understand the concept of "indigenous" particularly well or why Europe, Africa, and Asia have so few indigenous people
The Wikipedia page for Indigenous peoples claims that the majority of indigenous people live in Africa and Asia. [0]
My first thought for indigenous people in Asia would be Tibetans, but if I google "are Tibetans indigenous?" it appears to be a matter of debate.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples
The Wikipedia page for Indigenous peoples claims that the majority of indigenous people live in Africa and Asia. [0]
My first thought for indigenous people in Asia would be Tibetans, but if I google "are Tibetans indigenous?" it appears to be a matter of debate.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples
To illustrate the complexity of such questions, here's a map of hypothesized haplogroup spread across east asia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryukyuan_people#/media/File:Y-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryukyuan_people#/media/File:Y-...
> What defines an "indigenous" people?
Generally part of it is history of colonization. Good example of non-european related indigenous people are the Ainu, who are considered indigenous in comparison to the colonizing Japanese.
Generally part of it is history of colonization. Good example of non-european related indigenous people are the Ainu, who are considered indigenous in comparison to the colonizing Japanese.
What about groups which haven't been colonized in any significant way? What about non-indigenous groups which have been colonized? It seems pretty arbitrary.
> What about groups which haven't been colonized in any significant way?
They are not generally considered indigenous. What about them?
> What about non-indigenous groups which have been colonized?
Examples of such groups?
They are not generally considered indigenous. What about them?
> What about non-indigenous groups which have been colonized?
Examples of such groups?
> They are not generally considered indigenous. What about them?
I think there are examples, but it depends on how broad your definition of “colonized” is. The most extreme cases are the various isolated tribes of the world (of course, everything is interconnected, so a disingenuous person could argue that our impacts to the climate which affect their lifestyles constitute a kind of colonization, which is to say that disingenuous people like to stretch semantics).
> Examples of such groups
Virtually any non-indigenous people who have been conquered by an empire. The Irish are one of thousands of concrete examples.
I think there are examples, but it depends on how broad your definition of “colonized” is. The most extreme cases are the various isolated tribes of the world (of course, everything is interconnected, so a disingenuous person could argue that our impacts to the climate which affect their lifestyles constitute a kind of colonization, which is to say that disingenuous people like to stretch semantics).
> Examples of such groups
Virtually any non-indigenous people who have been conquered by an empire. The Irish are one of thousands of concrete examples.
>Examples of such groups?
Indians, Irish, many African countries, many SEA countries, etc
Indians, Irish, many African countries, many SEA countries, etc
Every way you slice and dice it, 'indigenous' is another word for 'pure bred' or 'Fatherland', which, when you use its synonym, makes it sound as dangerous of an idea as it is.
The reason indigeneity is not applied to Europe or Asia is because those cultures are just as indigenous as the natives of other parts of the world, but they've advanced well beyond that.
The resurgence of indigeneity as a concept is due to a resurgence of the noble savage myth on the behalf of europeans and a xenophobic, racial purity craze on behalf of certain self-described indigenous (it's hardly a universal thing).
In reality, being part of a lineage that's been on a certain plot of land gives you no more rights or authority than anyone else. Land division, ownership, and use should be determined by the needs of currently existing people, not tied indeterminably to the past. Why is it that we are happy to toss out any old tradition, and any old legal document, in order to bring it up to date with modern needs, but we simultaneously need to kowtow to people who claim their authority solely from the immobility of their ancestors?
The reason indigeneity is not applied to Europe or Asia is because those cultures are just as indigenous as the natives of other parts of the world, but they've advanced well beyond that.
The resurgence of indigeneity as a concept is due to a resurgence of the noble savage myth on the behalf of europeans and a xenophobic, racial purity craze on behalf of certain self-described indigenous (it's hardly a universal thing).
In reality, being part of a lineage that's been on a certain plot of land gives you no more rights or authority than anyone else. Land division, ownership, and use should be determined by the needs of currently existing people, not tied indeterminably to the past. Why is it that we are happy to toss out any old tradition, and any old legal document, in order to bring it up to date with modern needs, but we simultaneously need to kowtow to people who claim their authority solely from the immobility of their ancestors?
What a needlessly divisive, inaccurate, and frankly disgusting characterization.
The literally definition reads: "Indigenous or less commonly indigenous : of or relating to the earliest known inhabitants of a place and especially of a place that was colonized by a now-dominant group"
In most modern contexts it's used to refer to the diverse peoples that inhabited a land prior to European colonization.
In extension, here in Canada the Métis People (explicitly descendants of MIXED European and Indigenous ancestry) are recognized as an Indigenous group with unique language and cultural practices. They are by no means thought of as "pure bred" as you reductively tried to frame it.
The University of Alberta has an excellent, widely accoladed, and free MOOC on Indigenous Canada that I highly recommend you, and anyone else interested in learning more, consider taking: https://www.coursera.org/learn/indigenous-canada
The literally definition reads: "Indigenous or less commonly indigenous : of or relating to the earliest known inhabitants of a place and especially of a place that was colonized by a now-dominant group"
In most modern contexts it's used to refer to the diverse peoples that inhabited a land prior to European colonization.
In extension, here in Canada the Métis People (explicitly descendants of MIXED European and Indigenous ancestry) are recognized as an Indigenous group with unique language and cultural practices. They are by no means thought of as "pure bred" as you reductively tried to frame it.
The University of Alberta has an excellent, widely accoladed, and free MOOC on Indigenous Canada that I highly recommend you, and anyone else interested in learning more, consider taking: https://www.coursera.org/learn/indigenous-canada
Why do we give special status to “the earliest known people to inhabit a land”? I’m not trying to challenge any particular privilege afforded to any particular group, but I do want to reconcile the entire conception of categorizing people in this way with our modern, western moral framework.
In particular, doesn’t the idea of legally recognizing “a people” seem pretty close to 20th century racial ideologies (per the parent’s point)? How do we test an individual for membership in “a people”? Is there a one drop rule? Do you have to pass a cultural competency test? Speak a language?
What does it mean when we say “such and such land rightly belongs to such and such people”? Even if that people group was the earliest known, that doesn’t mean they didn’t likely take it from an earlier group.
It seems to me that the entire concept is fraught with the same problems that beset 20th century racialism. And please note the distinction between “indigenous people are bad” and “categorizing people into ‘indigenous’ and ‘other’ seems like a bad idea”.
In particular, doesn’t the idea of legally recognizing “a people” seem pretty close to 20th century racial ideologies (per the parent’s point)? How do we test an individual for membership in “a people”? Is there a one drop rule? Do you have to pass a cultural competency test? Speak a language?
What does it mean when we say “such and such land rightly belongs to such and such people”? Even if that people group was the earliest known, that doesn’t mean they didn’t likely take it from an earlier group.
It seems to me that the entire concept is fraught with the same problems that beset 20th century racialism. And please note the distinction between “indigenous people are bad” and “categorizing people into ‘indigenous’ and ‘other’ seems like a bad idea”.
> Why do we give special status to “the earliest known people to inhabit a land”?
Because generally speaking the later arrivals view the earlier people as subhuman and engage in horrific acts of violence against them. So it's not really that "earliest known people = special." It's more that displacing, dominating, or eradicating a people ought generally be frowned upon, and that's what has happened to many (most? all?) indigenous peoples in places like the Americas, Australia, etc.
I don't have any answers for you about how to test for membership, and you're absolutely right that this particular aspect of the issue is fraught. I'm not an expert but I believe that in the United States at least this question is left to the tribes themselves. ("The courts have consistently recognized that in the absence of express legislation by Congress to the contrary, an Indian tribe has complete authority to determine all questions of its own membership."[0]) That seems reasonable on its face at least, but it does have the unfortunate side effect of recreating the issue one level up: the United States government decides who is and isn't a tribe, and that's just as fraught.
These aren't straightforward issues, you're right, and they deserve a candid and in-depth treatment. But let's not get too far from the fundamental point, which is that it's pretty awful to show up on the shores of a continent where a bunch of people live and then destroy them and/or their way of life.
0. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK233104/
Because generally speaking the later arrivals view the earlier people as subhuman and engage in horrific acts of violence against them. So it's not really that "earliest known people = special." It's more that displacing, dominating, or eradicating a people ought generally be frowned upon, and that's what has happened to many (most? all?) indigenous peoples in places like the Americas, Australia, etc.
I don't have any answers for you about how to test for membership, and you're absolutely right that this particular aspect of the issue is fraught. I'm not an expert but I believe that in the United States at least this question is left to the tribes themselves. ("The courts have consistently recognized that in the absence of express legislation by Congress to the contrary, an Indian tribe has complete authority to determine all questions of its own membership."[0]) That seems reasonable on its face at least, but it does have the unfortunate side effect of recreating the issue one level up: the United States government decides who is and isn't a tribe, and that's just as fraught.
These aren't straightforward issues, you're right, and they deserve a candid and in-depth treatment. But let's not get too far from the fundamental point, which is that it's pretty awful to show up on the shores of a continent where a bunch of people live and then destroy them and/or their way of life.
0. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK233104/
> Because generally speaking the later arrivals view the earlier people as subhuman and engage in horrific acts of violence against them. So it's not really that "earliest known people = special." It's more that displacing, dominating, or eradicating a people ought generally be frowned upon, and that's what has happened to many (most? all?) indigenous peoples in places like the Americas, Australia, etc.
Many changes in people groups with respect to territory are simply migrations. Is there any evidence that violent conquest is the norm and migrations are the exceptions? My amateur understanding of history and archeology is that migrations are the norm and conquest is the exception (although posing this as a binary is itself misleading because violence is a matter of degrees). Moreover, lots of people who aren't considered indigenous have been brutally conquered, but we don't afford them special status (e.g., virtually any people which has been conquered by virtually any empire).
I certainly agree that many indigenous peoples in history have been brutally conquered, but considering they aren't the only ones and many of them haven't been brutally conquered, it seems like a crumby proxy.
> These aren't straightforward issues, you're right, and they deserve a candid and in-depth treatment. But let's not get too far from the fundamental point, which is that it's pretty awful to show up on the shores of a continent where a bunch of people live and then destroy them and/or their way of life.
Fully agree (who wouldn't? is this even controversial?), but I don't understand the "indigenous is a useful proxy for peoples who have suffered" argument.
Many changes in people groups with respect to territory are simply migrations. Is there any evidence that violent conquest is the norm and migrations are the exceptions? My amateur understanding of history and archeology is that migrations are the norm and conquest is the exception (although posing this as a binary is itself misleading because violence is a matter of degrees). Moreover, lots of people who aren't considered indigenous have been brutally conquered, but we don't afford them special status (e.g., virtually any people which has been conquered by virtually any empire).
I certainly agree that many indigenous peoples in history have been brutally conquered, but considering they aren't the only ones and many of them haven't been brutally conquered, it seems like a crumby proxy.
> These aren't straightforward issues, you're right, and they deserve a candid and in-depth treatment. But let's not get too far from the fundamental point, which is that it's pretty awful to show up on the shores of a continent where a bunch of people live and then destroy them and/or their way of life.
Fully agree (who wouldn't? is this even controversial?), but I don't understand the "indigenous is a useful proxy for peoples who have suffered" argument.
All good points. The site is run predominantly by folks from North America, and I live in the United States, so there's a particularly North American flavor to this discussion. That's naturally going to focus on the specific experiences of North American indigenous peoples, which, at least in my reading, are unquestionably experiences of conquest. So in that context, I'm not even sure it's a proxy; it seems like it's actually at the heart of the matter. Whether it's a reasonable proxy at a global scale across all of time, or even an intelligible concept when removed from an American context, I don't know.
Fair enough, but there are also global organizations that deal in the indigenous/other dichotomy, including the UN (which has a special department or council concerning indigenous peoples). So there’s clearly a more universal notion that does my make sense to me.
Its more useful to see the movement to support indigenous people as a counterforce to attempt balance out the power dynamic between the colonizers and colonized. Without recognizing indigenous people as a group, they can not be provided the support that they need and they would get stamped out by the colonizers. In many cases its matter of trying to figure out how we can get the indigenous culture to survive at all.
Of course it is another discussion completely if every culture is something we want to try to rescue. Right now the general atmosphere is that yes, we do want to try to have as many cultures survive as possible instead of the great assimilation thinking of previous centuries.
Of course it is another discussion completely if every culture is something we want to try to rescue. Right now the general atmosphere is that yes, we do want to try to have as many cultures survive as possible instead of the great assimilation thinking of previous centuries.
> Its more useful to see the movement to support indigenous people as a counterforce to attempt balance out the power dynamic between the colonizers and colonized. Without recognizing indigenous people as a group, they can not be provided the support that they need and they would get stamped out by the colonizers.
Wouldn’t it be all the more effective and righteous to categorize between “colonized peoples” (rather than simply indigenous) and “other”? Or even “cultures at risk” versus “other”? Or do the Inuit have some stronger claim than the Irish or the Armenians?
Wouldn’t it be all the more effective and righteous to categorize between “colonized peoples” (rather than simply indigenous) and “other”? Or even “cultures at risk” versus “other”? Or do the Inuit have some stronger claim than the Irish or the Armenians?
I guess I'm ok with nuance and gray areas and anti-colonialism in a way that doesn't feel like a contradiction. Sorry that's hard for you.
Hey Aaron, I think you're taking undue offense. There's nothing particularly "colonialist" about anything I've posted, and indeed "colonialism" isn't limited to indigenous peoples, which is kind of my point. I'm wondering what utility, if any, can there be in dividing the world into "indigenous" and "other". If anti-colonialism is the ax you'd like to grind, then why not divide the world into "colonized" and "other"? Why use "indigenous" as a proxy?
Why use utility an a measure to begin with? I think we're going to have to agree to disagree simply because of the number of assumptions being brought into this discussion.
Well, I’m not sure why we use “utility”—that seems like a profound question. But that’s the criterion we’ve used to choose our concepts practically forever, so why make the exception for this one concept?
I have to hand it to you. It's clear that you're adept at creating confusion around ideas by "just asking questions", and creating cohesion around fuzzy concepts by stating opinions as facts. I've participated in too many of these "debates" to know where this is headed. If you genuinely want educate yourself on these topics, there are resources to do so. I encourage you to seek these out.
When you argue like this, it betrays your inability to defend your position or even admit as much. And anyway, this isn't a high school debate with winners and losers, it's about understanding and advancing. The defensiveness is unnecessary.
indigenous and colonized are more or less synonyms, its not really a proxy of anything. Why specific word is used instead of another to refer to something is a question more suited for linguists. But if I had to make a guess, I'd venture to say that people prefer to use a term to describe themselves that doesn't center around the negatives.
I don’t think that’s true. I don’t think the Welsh or Irish are on anyone’s list of indigenous peoples, for example. Maybe “colonized” has some specific academic meaning that I’m misapplying to the Welsh, Irish, etc.
[deleted]
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the Métis not entitled to the same tax benefits as other indigenous groups?
> 2) Can an MNO citizenship card be used for a tax exemption?
> No. Métis are not presently exempt from paying provincial or federal taxes. You should not attempt to use an MNO citizenship card for this purpose. If you do, you will be personally liable for any legal consequences.
(from https://www.metisnation.org/registry/citizenship/frequently-... )
The same page almost comes close to answering the question I had, which is, "what make a person Métis"? It seems to be someone who is not otherwise "aboriginal" but also not entirely not so either.
> No. Métis are not presently exempt from paying provincial or federal taxes. You should not attempt to use an MNO citizenship card for this purpose. If you do, you will be personally liable for any legal consequences.
(from https://www.metisnation.org/registry/citizenship/frequently-... )
The same page almost comes close to answering the question I had, which is, "what make a person Métis"? It seems to be someone who is not otherwise "aboriginal" but also not entirely not so either.
> "Indigenous or less commonly indigenous : of or relating to the earliest known inhabitants of a place and especially of a place that was colonized by a now-dominant group"
And exactly, what am I supposed to learn from this? What happens if you descend from the earliest known inhabitant of a place? Don't we all? Exactly what are you supposed to gain from being a descendant of such a person as opposed to those who are not? Do I get brownie points for having a nose?
> In extension, here in Canada the Métis People (explicitly descendants of MIXED European and Indigenous ancestry) are recognized as an Indigenous group with unique language and cultural practices.
Exactly my point. The word is either meaningless (anyone who's different is indigenous) or it refers directly to a notion of racial purity. You can't have it both ways. Either its meaningless and useless or its meaningful and dangerous.
I belong to such a creole group, and I don't understand why it ought to make me so special. Guess what... it doesn't. Governments can classify us as whatever they want. I'm indigenous, like all other humans, in that I descend from the earliest known inhabitants of many places, presumably. And I'm also a mix of many cultures, like EVERY other human being on the planet. Oh also, I'm the child of conquerors, because literally everyone is. No one is special. People who think their ancestors make them special deserve the highest forms of criticism.
EDIT: one more thing:
> In most modern contexts it's used to refer to the diverse peoples that inhabited a land prior to European colonization.
How needlessly eurocentric
And exactly, what am I supposed to learn from this? What happens if you descend from the earliest known inhabitant of a place? Don't we all? Exactly what are you supposed to gain from being a descendant of such a person as opposed to those who are not? Do I get brownie points for having a nose?
> In extension, here in Canada the Métis People (explicitly descendants of MIXED European and Indigenous ancestry) are recognized as an Indigenous group with unique language and cultural practices.
Exactly my point. The word is either meaningless (anyone who's different is indigenous) or it refers directly to a notion of racial purity. You can't have it both ways. Either its meaningless and useless or its meaningful and dangerous.
I belong to such a creole group, and I don't understand why it ought to make me so special. Guess what... it doesn't. Governments can classify us as whatever they want. I'm indigenous, like all other humans, in that I descend from the earliest known inhabitants of many places, presumably. And I'm also a mix of many cultures, like EVERY other human being on the planet. Oh also, I'm the child of conquerors, because literally everyone is. No one is special. People who think their ancestors make them special deserve the highest forms of criticism.
EDIT: one more thing:
> In most modern contexts it's used to refer to the diverse peoples that inhabited a land prior to European colonization.
How needlessly eurocentric
> the diverse peoples that inhabited a land prior to European colonization
maybe we can just rewrite that subtly, to get
"the diverse peoples that inhabited a land prior to one of the most cataclysmic mass death events in the history of humankind, in which roughly 10% of the total human population of the planet died"
any better?
maybe we can just rewrite that subtly, to get
"the diverse peoples that inhabited a land prior to one of the most cataclysmic mass death events in the history of humankind, in which roughly 10% of the total human population of the planet died"
any better?
What’s the point? That Europeans are uniquely, intrinsically evil and Native Americans are noble savages? Or is it more likely that Europeans and Native Americans are both human groups (with all of the entailed capacity for creativity and destruction) who occupied different positions on a power spectrum (including asymmetrical immunity) when they came into contact?
The point, despite your defensive posturing about Europeans, is that the largely unintentional introduction of disease by Spanish explorers and missionaries was a cataclysm for the Americas unlike anything seen on any other continent.
Sure, not long after, they sent armies to conquer the land, but that's not part of the die off that took place before most of those armies got off the boats.
I'm not pretending there was anything more or less noble about the residents of the Americas vs. those of Europe (although the latter do have a spectacularly bad record).
Sure, not long after, they sent armies to conquer the land, but that's not part of the die off that took place before most of those armies got off the boats.
I'm not pretending there was anything more or less noble about the residents of the Americas vs. those of Europe (although the latter do have a spectacularly bad record).
> The point, despite your defensive posturing about Europeans
I’m not defensively posturing? I’m not even European. Sometimes people are just interested in the truth—no need to suppose some nefarious motive.
> I'm not pretending there was anything more or less noble about the residents of the Americas vs. those of Europe (although the latter do have a spectacularly bad record).
Terrific, I’m glad we agree here (although again Europeans have a bad record because they kept a written record, not because they were uniquely barbarous).
I’m not defensively posturing? I’m not even European. Sometimes people are just interested in the truth—no need to suppose some nefarious motive.
> I'm not pretending there was anything more or less noble about the residents of the Americas vs. those of Europe (although the latter do have a spectacularly bad record).
Terrific, I’m glad we agree here (although again Europeans have a bad record because they kept a written record, not because they were uniquely barbarous).
> I'm not pretending there was anything more or less noble about the residents of the Americas vs. those of Europe (although the latter do have a spectacularly bad record).
The amount of brainwashing in this sentence is absolutely insane. You state a thing about no group being more or less noble and then immediately contradict it with European exceptionalism. When will the gaslighting end?
The amount of brainwashing in this sentence is absolutely insane. You state a thing about no group being more or less noble and then immediately contradict it with European exceptionalism. When will the gaslighting end?
While conquest and control have been the hallmark of powerful human civilizations everywhere on the planet, it seems that the European versions post (roughly) 1600 have taken a different approach than their American, African and Indo-Asian equivalents. While the latter have all engaged in something roughly approximating colonialism, it seems the it is mostly the European powers that have repeatedly engaged in attempts at complete extermination of those they manage to subjugate.
I don't see this as a European trait so much as an extension of the religious and political doctrine of the period. The combination of Abrahamic ("personal relationship with god") religion powering a divine right of kings and technological war superiority seems to be a particularly vicious combination. Other cultures and civilizations have engaged in some brutal oppression too, but for the most part they seem to have understood that other humans were (1) humans (2) potential assets and subsequently engaged in a more complex aspirational relationship with the conquered than most European cultures have tended to do.
I don't see this as a European trait so much as an extension of the religious and political doctrine of the period. The combination of Abrahamic ("personal relationship with god") religion powering a divine right of kings and technological war superiority seems to be a particularly vicious combination. Other cultures and civilizations have engaged in some brutal oppression too, but for the most part they seem to have understood that other humans were (1) humans (2) potential assets and subsequently engaged in a more complex aspirational relationship with the conquered than most European cultures have tended to do.
> European powers that have repeatedly engaged in attempts at complete extermination of those they manage to subjugate.
Did Europeans attempt to exterminate peoples in Asia and Africa?
> I don't see this as a European trait so much as an extension of the religious and political doctrine of the period. The combination of Abrahamic ("personal relationship with god") religion
“personal relationship with God” is solely a trait of Christianity. Anyway Christianity and other Abrahemic faiths are widespread across many civilizations which are peaceful so I doubt this factor.
> divine right of kings
This has been a feature of many civilizations going back at least to the Egyptians but probably much earlier. Nothing particular to Europe or Christianity (or Abrahamic faiths more generally) here either.
> technological war superiority
Here I agree, but I actually think this was probably a relatively minor advantage compared with the disease factor which meant the Europeans were fighting peoples whose civilizations were positively collapsing.
> Other cultures and civilizations have engaged in some brutal oppression too, but for the most part they seem to have understood that other humans were (1) humans (2) potential assets and subsequently engaged in a more complex aspirational relationship with the conquered than most European cultures have tended to do.
I don’t think there’s any truth to this. Many other peoples enslaved, exterminated, sacrificed, and even ate their vanquished. Europeans stand out merely in their efficiency.
Did Europeans attempt to exterminate peoples in Asia and Africa?
> I don't see this as a European trait so much as an extension of the religious and political doctrine of the period. The combination of Abrahamic ("personal relationship with god") religion
“personal relationship with God” is solely a trait of Christianity. Anyway Christianity and other Abrahemic faiths are widespread across many civilizations which are peaceful so I doubt this factor.
> divine right of kings
This has been a feature of many civilizations going back at least to the Egyptians but probably much earlier. Nothing particular to Europe or Christianity (or Abrahamic faiths more generally) here either.
> technological war superiority
Here I agree, but I actually think this was probably a relatively minor advantage compared with the disease factor which meant the Europeans were fighting peoples whose civilizations were positively collapsing.
> Other cultures and civilizations have engaged in some brutal oppression too, but for the most part they seem to have understood that other humans were (1) humans (2) potential assets and subsequently engaged in a more complex aspirational relationship with the conquered than most European cultures have tended to do.
I don’t think there’s any truth to this. Many other peoples enslaved, exterminated, sacrificed, and even ate their vanquished. Europeans stand out merely in their efficiency.
> potential assets and subsequently engaged in a more complex aspirational relationship with the conquered than most European cultures have tended to do.
What utter nonsense. The british colonials were epic in their attempts to integrate their colonized into their societies. Gandhi himself trained to be a lawyer at a prestigious law school (the Inner Temple) in England. See the plethora of ex-colonials in England itself. Same with the spanish (whose colonized peoples have literally adopted the moniker latino/a to describe themselves) and the portuguese (who -- as the descendants of portuguese colonization -- are pretty popular overall in the areas they colonized).
What utter nonsense. The british colonials were epic in their attempts to integrate their colonized into their societies. Gandhi himself trained to be a lawyer at a prestigious law school (the Inner Temple) in England. See the plethora of ex-colonials in England itself. Same with the spanish (whose colonized peoples have literally adopted the moniker latino/a to describe themselves) and the portuguese (who -- as the descendants of portuguese colonization -- are pretty popular overall in the areas they colonized).
Pretty sure you are responding to the wrong person or misread my post or something.
> “personal relationship with God” is solely a trait of Christianity.
I don't think this is true. Judaism and Islam both feature the same fundamental concept: there is a single god who cares about you personally and that your behavior and belief will shape that relationship in terms of direct, personal consequence. This is not true of the pre-Abrahamic faiths, it's not true of the religions of Asia or Africa.
> Many other peoples [ ... ]
Can you name any other conquerors in history who had a clearly and repeatedly stated goal of the complete elimination of the conquered? I'm not saying there are none, but I'm not aware of them.
I don't think this is true. Judaism and Islam both feature the same fundamental concept: there is a single god who cares about you personally and that your behavior and belief will shape that relationship in terms of direct, personal consequence. This is not true of the pre-Abrahamic faiths, it's not true of the religions of Asia or Africa.
> Many other peoples [ ... ]
Can you name any other conquerors in history who had a clearly and repeatedly stated goal of the complete elimination of the conquered? I'm not saying there are none, but I'm not aware of them.
> I don't think this is true. Judaism and Islam both feature the same fundamental concept: there is a single god who cares about you personally and that your behavior and belief will shape that relationship in terms of direct, personal consequence. This is not true of the pre-Abrahamic faiths, it's not true of the religions of Asia or Africa.
"Personal relationship with God" refers to the idea that God knows us as individuals and cares about us individually (rather than as an abstract collective). That's a uniquely Christian theology. Islam and Judaism both believe that God knows and cares about his creation in general, but that a relationship with God isn't possible because God is beyond human understanding (Christianity also agrees that God transcends human understanding, but disagrees that this prevents a personal relationship). Indeed, both Islam and Judaism maintain that "God is not a person", while Christianity maintains that Jesus is the literal personification of God.
> Can you name any other conquerors in history who had a clearly and repeatedly stated goal of the complete elimination of the conquered?
1. I don't accept that this is true for European powers in any general sense at any point in history.
2. Selection bias--even if prehistoric peoples did have this stated goal, we would be far less likely to have any evidence. We do have evidence of prehistoric genocides and all manner of other violence, and we don't have any compelling framework for why Europeans would be uniquely evil. Even still, history records many attempted and successful genocides by non-European powers (e.g., Rwanda, Cambodia, Ottoman Empire, etc) and many European genocides which predate the Christianization of Europe (contrary to your framework about why Europeans are/were uniquely evil).
3. I don't accept that "repeated stated goals of genocide" is the right metric when we can look at actual genocides.
"Personal relationship with God" refers to the idea that God knows us as individuals and cares about us individually (rather than as an abstract collective). That's a uniquely Christian theology. Islam and Judaism both believe that God knows and cares about his creation in general, but that a relationship with God isn't possible because God is beyond human understanding (Christianity also agrees that God transcends human understanding, but disagrees that this prevents a personal relationship). Indeed, both Islam and Judaism maintain that "God is not a person", while Christianity maintains that Jesus is the literal personification of God.
> Can you name any other conquerors in history who had a clearly and repeatedly stated goal of the complete elimination of the conquered?
1. I don't accept that this is true for European powers in any general sense at any point in history.
2. Selection bias--even if prehistoric peoples did have this stated goal, we would be far less likely to have any evidence. We do have evidence of prehistoric genocides and all manner of other violence, and we don't have any compelling framework for why Europeans would be uniquely evil. Even still, history records many attempted and successful genocides by non-European powers (e.g., Rwanda, Cambodia, Ottoman Empire, etc) and many European genocides which predate the Christianization of Europe (contrary to your framework about why Europeans are/were uniquely evil).
3. I don't accept that "repeated stated goals of genocide" is the right metric when we can look at actual genocides.
> "the diverse peoples that inhabited a land prior to one of the most cataclysmic mass death events in the history of humankind, in which roughly 10% of the total human population of the planet died"
That one's ancestors suffered in some way does not give you any more authority or importance today.
That one's ancestors suffered in some way does not give you any more authority or importance today.
"in some way" makes it all sound a bit abstract.
The impact of disease on the Americas was arguably numerically larger than actual colonization, and the initial wave (say, 1492-1520) probably wasn't very intentional. So yeah, that particular experience doesn't give anyone "more authority or importance today".
But colonization, first by the Spanish and later by northern Europeans, was literally a war whose goal was frequently the complete annihilation of the population already in the Americas. It was a brutal, vicious war (that in a number of senses continues to the present day), and suffering through that does, under most western-ish moral philosophies, give you some status that you otherwise would not have.
The impact of disease on the Americas was arguably numerically larger than actual colonization, and the initial wave (say, 1492-1520) probably wasn't very intentional. So yeah, that particular experience doesn't give anyone "more authority or importance today".
But colonization, first by the Spanish and later by northern Europeans, was literally a war whose goal was frequently the complete annihilation of the population already in the Americas. It was a brutal, vicious war (that in a number of senses continues to the present day), and suffering through that does, under most western-ish moral philosophies, give you some status that you otherwise would not have.
Welcome to history and prehistory. Brutality was common and limited only by power imbalances between the conqueror and the conquered. The remarkable thing about the European conquests was that the power difference had become tremendous after tens of millennia of isolation, which allowed the Europeans to visit unprecedented brutality on the native peoples. It wasn’t that the Europeans were uniquely evil, but uniquely powerful relative to those they conquered.
> suffering through that does, under most western-ish moral philosophies, give you some status that you otherwise would not have.
This is an interesting point, but I don’t think the common belief is “indigenous have moral title to the land due to great suffering”, but rather due to “they were the first people in the land at recorded history” so in our collective psyche we errantly assume they must’ve been the first there ever. I deed, if it were merely “suffering” then surely their disease experience alone would suffice? These are at least the reasons I’ve commonly heard, including from people in this thread.
> suffering through that does, under most western-ish moral philosophies, give you some status that you otherwise would not have.
This is an interesting point, but I don’t think the common belief is “indigenous have moral title to the land due to great suffering”, but rather due to “they were the first people in the land at recorded history” so in our collective psyche we errantly assume they must’ve been the first there ever. I deed, if it were merely “suffering” then surely their disease experience alone would suffice? These are at least the reasons I’ve commonly heard, including from people in this thread.
And so what? Disease kills people. What exactly are we to do about it. Your ancestors being more susceptible to some disease doesn't make you special.
What I wrote:
> The impact of disease [ ... ] So yeah, that particular experience doesn't give anyone "more authority or importance today".
What we could do is read a little more carefully, just for starters.
> The impact of disease [ ... ] So yeah, that particular experience doesn't give anyone "more authority or importance today".
What we could do is read a little more carefully, just for starters.
> What defines an "indigenous" people?
This map is mostly a still picture of where different tribes and ethnicities were when they first encountered Europeans (or written history).
"indigenous" French, for example, is harder to define because there was no written history or very little. Are the people who painted the Lascaux caves [0] the "indigenous" French? After them there were Bronze Age and Iron Age cultures that evolved; where they descendants of the Lascaux people or part of a group that settled the area?
Same thing with Greenland and eastern Canada, the Viking made some descriptions of the natives that more or less matches what Europeans latter observed. But it's not clear they were talking about the same culture [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascaux
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skr%C3%A6ling
This map is mostly a still picture of where different tribes and ethnicities were when they first encountered Europeans (or written history).
"indigenous" French, for example, is harder to define because there was no written history or very little. Are the people who painted the Lascaux caves [0] the "indigenous" French? After them there were Bronze Age and Iron Age cultures that evolved; where they descendants of the Lascaux people or part of a group that settled the area?
Same thing with Greenland and eastern Canada, the Viking made some descriptions of the natives that more or less matches what Europeans latter observed. But it's not clear they were talking about the same culture [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascaux
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skr%C3%A6ling
What about "most recently replaced" as a definition"?
I think that would incorporate a whole lot of people that we don't normally consider "indigenous". Moreover, in some cases indigenous people haven't been fully replaced. It also doesn't clear up the confusion about "what is a people" and "how do you test for individual membership in a given people group?". And what about the "land ownership" inferences that we usually hang off of "indigenous". If Native Americans take back Ohio, does that make non-Native-American Ohioans "indigenous"? This example is admittedly contrived, but the whole concept feels contrived to me.
I suppose I could clarify to "replaced as the majority 'people'”. I agree with you on every point though. I have a lot of sympathy for people who feel displaced or disinherited, or end up a lower-class citizen by virtue of something that ultimately comes down to clearly genetic differences with the society in which they live. I think it's ultimately meaningless to say that someone whose ancestors lived in Europe in 1400 is an invader and someone whose ancestors at the same time were living in the Americas and had far fewer immunities is necessarily a victim of same. Nor is the converse necessarily true, but the whole thing is a big fucking mess.
> the whole thing is a big fucking mess.
Well said.
Well said.
IIRC Aztecs constantly replaced people in adjacent territories (and vice versa), does that mean some are more indigenous than others?
> This map is cool, but I'm still embarrassed to say I don't understand the concept of "indigenous" particularly well or why Europe, Africa, and Asia have so few indigenous people.
The difference is likely linguistic. When it comes to Europe, Asia, and Northern Africa, we have a tendency to talk about nation states, empires, kingdoms, or other political structures. When it comes to the Americas or Southern Africa, we have a tendency to talk about tribes that are pigeonholed into larger cultural groups based upon their similarities. In some cases, that may be fine in the sense that it differentiates how societies functioned. In other cases, it is used to trivialize the degree of development reached in the Southern Hemisphere and the Americas even though there is evidence of developed societies.
As an example of this, I have never heard of the indigenous people of the British Isles being referred to as tribal even though I have heard to indigenous being used to refer to the peoples who lived there prior to the various waves of invasion (e.g. Roman, Viking, and likely others).
The difference is likely linguistic. When it comes to Europe, Asia, and Northern Africa, we have a tendency to talk about nation states, empires, kingdoms, or other political structures. When it comes to the Americas or Southern Africa, we have a tendency to talk about tribes that are pigeonholed into larger cultural groups based upon their similarities. In some cases, that may be fine in the sense that it differentiates how societies functioned. In other cases, it is used to trivialize the degree of development reached in the Southern Hemisphere and the Americas even though there is evidence of developed societies.
As an example of this, I have never heard of the indigenous people of the British Isles being referred to as tribal even though I have heard to indigenous being used to refer to the peoples who lived there prior to the various waves of invasion (e.g. Roman, Viking, and likely others).
I think we largely use “tribes” and “nation states” and so on correctly. You don’t hear the Aztecs or the Mayans or the Inca referred to as a “tribe”, but rather as civilizations. And similarly, we use “tribes” to refer to various units of Europeans in history (Celtic tribes, Germanic tribes, etc).
There have also been some relatively recent discoveries that (especially North American) Native American societies were considerably more advanced than Europeans encountered because old world diseases advanced ahead of European settlers and wiped out native civilizations before Europeans were on scene to capture it in writing. But this also isn’t European supremacy, it’s understandable ignorance—it’s taken significant advances in archeology and technology (I think much of the evidence of advanced civilizations came from Lidar mappings of settlements which have long since been engulfed by jungle or forest).
> As an example of this, I have never heard of the indigenous people of the British Isles being referred to as tribal even though I have heard to indigenous being used to refer to the peoples who lived there prior to the various waves of invasion (e.g. Roman, Viking, and likely others).
I’ve know relatively little about the indigenous Britons, but we know that there were Celtic tribes in Britain prior to the Roman conquest, and we even know the names of many of said tribes. The fact that this isn’t commonly known isn’t some sort of European superiority as you suppose, but rather that we haven’t done a good job of educating people about British history.
There have also been some relatively recent discoveries that (especially North American) Native American societies were considerably more advanced than Europeans encountered because old world diseases advanced ahead of European settlers and wiped out native civilizations before Europeans were on scene to capture it in writing. But this also isn’t European supremacy, it’s understandable ignorance—it’s taken significant advances in archeology and technology (I think much of the evidence of advanced civilizations came from Lidar mappings of settlements which have long since been engulfed by jungle or forest).
> As an example of this, I have never heard of the indigenous people of the British Isles being referred to as tribal even though I have heard to indigenous being used to refer to the peoples who lived there prior to the various waves of invasion (e.g. Roman, Viking, and likely others).
I’ve know relatively little about the indigenous Britons, but we know that there were Celtic tribes in Britain prior to the Roman conquest, and we even know the names of many of said tribes. The fact that this isn’t commonly known isn’t some sort of European superiority as you suppose, but rather that we haven’t done a good job of educating people about British history.
You're missing... half of the globe. And there are a lot of questions about who is "indigenous".
Do Irish, Scot and Welsh Celts count as indigenous - these were all colonised by the English? Similar question with groups that have held the same territory across history, such as Indians, Mongolians, Pakistanis, Saudis, etc... are they indigenous? Many were colonised but have since reclaimed their land.
Are you going to include Uyghurs? They have been colonised across large parts of South East Asia, and up to today are being driven from long held lands.
Do Irish, Scot and Welsh Celts count as indigenous - these were all colonised by the English? Similar question with groups that have held the same territory across history, such as Indians, Mongolians, Pakistanis, Saudis, etc... are they indigenous? Many were colonised but have since reclaimed their land.
Are you going to include Uyghurs? They have been colonised across large parts of South East Asia, and up to today are being driven from long held lands.
Reconciliation with the natives was a huge factor in the debates for the canadian election.
>Reconciliation: >the restoration of friendly relations. >"his reconciliation with your uncle"
Clearly implying that we are not on friendly relations right now. Mind you, 75% of natives have abandoned the reserves and joined Canadian society. Our multiculturalism and diversity accepts them.
But why did the government censor the opposing debate? If you watched that debate, they never actually debated. They all agreed with each other.
This is because we aren't on good terms with the natives and allowing debate on the subject would inflame the problem. We have to say we are going to get friendly, even though we never do.
>The great aim of our legislation has been to do away with the tribal system and assimilate the Indian people in all respects with the other inhabitants of the Dominion as speedily as they are fit to change.
>John A Macdonald, 1887
He was a conservative prime minister who created legislation intent on destroying the natives. Worse yet, Pierre Trudeau, our current prime minister's father, in addition to a future prime minister. Liberal Jean Chretien wrote the 1969 white papers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_White_Paper
They never did it. What an absolute shame. We almost fixed the disaster that it has become today.
Our current government will look like they are doing something to fix the problem. But in reality will not actually do anything.
>Reconciliation: >the restoration of friendly relations. >"his reconciliation with your uncle"
Clearly implying that we are not on friendly relations right now. Mind you, 75% of natives have abandoned the reserves and joined Canadian society. Our multiculturalism and diversity accepts them.
But why did the government censor the opposing debate? If you watched that debate, they never actually debated. They all agreed with each other.
This is because we aren't on good terms with the natives and allowing debate on the subject would inflame the problem. We have to say we are going to get friendly, even though we never do.
>The great aim of our legislation has been to do away with the tribal system and assimilate the Indian people in all respects with the other inhabitants of the Dominion as speedily as they are fit to change.
>John A Macdonald, 1887
He was a conservative prime minister who created legislation intent on destroying the natives. Worse yet, Pierre Trudeau, our current prime minister's father, in addition to a future prime minister. Liberal Jean Chretien wrote the 1969 white papers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_White_Paper
They never did it. What an absolute shame. We almost fixed the disaster that it has become today.
Our current government will look like they are doing something to fix the problem. But in reality will not actually do anything.
[deleted]
This is great. It's useful to be able to not just visualize this but to go from nations/territories to individual treaties, which are then linked to tribal sites describing those treaties and (very often) how the U.S. government has failed to honor them.
Map link on click leads to
https://native-land.ca/maps/treaties/point-elliott-treaty/
which leads to, among several others,
https://www.duwamishtribe.org/treaty-of-point-elliott
All very clean and direct. This helps me at least understand these concepts a little more easily. Thanks to the folks who made this.
Map link on click leads to
https://native-land.ca/maps/treaties/point-elliott-treaty/
which leads to, among several others,
https://www.duwamishtribe.org/treaty-of-point-elliott
All very clean and direct. This helps me at least understand these concepts a little more easily. Thanks to the folks who made this.
That'd be http://victortemprano.com/. Super nice guy.
How comprehensive is this? I don't see a tribe that a neighboring city is supposed to be named after.
According to the website it looks to be an active work in progress and would welcome corrections/improvements.
At the very least, it's missing treaties under negotiation.
This is pretty comprehensive in some geographies with glaring exceptions like Southeast Asia where there is no mention of the hills people who typically were driven out of China and into SE Asia. The Hmong are probably the most well known since there is a pop in the US.
The Black Sea area probably has had too much turnover to be useful. India is also underrepresented.
Come to think of it South Africa also has a history of displacement by colonialists and also others looking for opportunity in the wake of the colonialists.
The Black Sea area probably has had too much turnover to be useful. India is also underrepresented.
Come to think of it South Africa also has a history of displacement by colonialists and also others looking for opportunity in the wake of the colonialists.
One past thread:
Contemporary Canadian Indigenous Territory and Language Map - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9903173 - July 2015 (7 comments)
Contemporary Canadian Indigenous Territory and Language Map - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9903173 - July 2015 (7 comments)
Sorry but this seems like a curated list. Where are Kurds, Berbers, Yazidi, Basques, land given away by the Yalta conference. This makes only certain forms of land appropriation illegitimate.
This is a general confusion (problem, trouble, discomfort) I have with dividing the world up into "indigenous" and "other"--it feels very arbitrary and ahistorical (and I'm happy to be corrected!). Surely all of human history and pre-history, people were moving around and conquering each other's territory and so on? What criteria do we use to determine which territory rightfully belongs to a given "people" (and "what constitutes a people?" seems like another particularly difficult question).
So you wouldn't object to a burglar coming into your house to steal all of 'your' stuff, because, clearly, that's how it has been done "all of human history and pre-history", and really, "What criteria do we use to determine which [stuff] rightfully belongs to [you]" anyway?
Of course, but the idea here is that in all likelihood, the indigenous people themselves took the land from another group in prehistory, so I don’t understand why we talk about various places which were long since colonized “really belonging” to the indigenous group. What’s the point? They were likely neither the first to the land, nor were they in control of the land when the music stopped (i.e., when we developed international norms for not colonizing other peoples). It doesn’t seem like a particularly convincing claim.
You'll have to admit that your argument only holds if you pick your time frame of reference precisely, and conveniently, to just after land grab was no longer "acceptable". I don't think an arbitrarily and conveniently defined cut-off date makes it a morally defensible argument, if it even ever was acceptable (the morality of this was even discussed at the time of the landgrab). It's like the burglars saying, "well of course if you had bought your stuff a week later, you'd be safe. But, tough luck!"
It's not like that was 1000 years ago; There are people today that were alive when that happened, or knew people who lived through it.
It's not like that was 1000 years ago; There are people today that were alive when that happened, or knew people who lived through it.
To be clear, I don’t think there’s a good ethical framework for determining who has rightful claim to a given plot of land. I agree that it’s convenient for me that the least arbitrary “cutoff” is the relatively stabilization of borders (which itself is pretty nebulous). I’m not wed to it, but it certainly seems more defensible than “whoever was there when history arrived”. The whole enterprise seems intractable. Or as another commenter put it:
> the whole thing is a big fucking mess.
> the whole thing is a big fucking mess.
Oh yeah, it's a mess, we surely agree on that ;-)
[deleted]
Foisting this foreign and uniquely-European idea of land ownership on societies that never had such a concept to begin with seems so utterly colonialist to me.
As told by the history and traditions orally passed down from generation to generation, from elders to the young, we know that our ancestors did not consider themselves to "own" land. And they certainly did not have treaties amongst themselves and others before colonizers arrived.
Land is something that all spirited creatures, from humans through to the deer through to the tiniest of insects and fungus, share. We never "own" it, but merely coexist with it for a limited period of time.
The land is as much, or as little, ours as it is the bison's, or the elk's, or the snapping turtle's.
We may drive away the bear, or he may drive away us, but in the end the land is where it will be and how it will be.
None of us "own" it. It isn't "native land". It is just land.
As told by the history and traditions orally passed down from generation to generation, from elders to the young, we know that our ancestors did not consider themselves to "own" land. And they certainly did not have treaties amongst themselves and others before colonizers arrived.
Land is something that all spirited creatures, from humans through to the deer through to the tiniest of insects and fungus, share. We never "own" it, but merely coexist with it for a limited period of time.
The land is as much, or as little, ours as it is the bison's, or the elk's, or the snapping turtle's.
We may drive away the bear, or he may drive away us, but in the end the land is where it will be and how it will be.
None of us "own" it. It isn't "native land". It is just land.
I disagree with broad brush statements about "uniquely-European" ideas when it comes to indigenous peoples of the Americas. The concept of land ownership, stewardship and ultimately domain of rule, were present with cultures across the Americas. This can be inferred though hunting grounds passed through clans, to land surrounding structures, like the tribe I am from. What seems to be interesting is the uniquely-American idea of the native monoculture or some kind of tribal harmony with land, resources, and people. It is a shame that our history is fragmented and understudied because it wasn't a Disney-esque utopia before the Vikings and Spaniards.
For what it's worth, I'm indigenous and maintain close ties to my family's pueblo in New Mexico.
[edit for spelling]
For what it's worth, I'm indigenous and maintain close ties to my family's pueblo in New Mexico.
[edit for spelling]
Yep. The colonialist thing here is the notion of making sweeping proclamations about all indigenous nations as some uniform thing, as if they didn't have any individual political and cultural history.
The closest indigenous nations to me, that I'm most familar with, those of the NW Coast, certainly had sophisticated property rights, both physical (ie. hunting grounds) and intellectual (particular rights to use songs, stories and figures in art).
The closest indigenous nations to me, that I'm most familar with, those of the NW Coast, certainly had sophisticated property rights, both physical (ie. hunting grounds) and intellectual (particular rights to use songs, stories and figures in art).
Your comment reminded me of this Government of Canada web document, detailing pre-Columbian conflict in North America:
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/service...
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/service...
And Indigenous people didn't have wars over territory/resources in pre-colonial times amongst different groups? Individual land ownership is different from group land ownership.
The concept of ownership manifests itself if there exists entities (or agents) and limited set of resources to share between entities. An entity owns a resource if it can assert control over it and deny control over it to others.
It's pretty brutal but in the end, that's kind of what it is. If you dissolve all governments, teleport us on a new world and wait to see what happens, ownership will develop based on this. No one "owns" Jupiter at this time. If one day someone manages to deny access to Jupiter to others, while having access to it, that person will probably reasonably "own" Jupiter.
It's pretty brutal but in the end, that's kind of what it is. If you dissolve all governments, teleport us on a new world and wait to see what happens, ownership will develop based on this. No one "owns" Jupiter at this time. If one day someone manages to deny access to Jupiter to others, while having access to it, that person will probably reasonably "own" Jupiter.
The site has a lead-in to discussion about critical interpretation of the whole phenomenon of territory acknowledgement:
https://native-land.ca/resources/territory-acknowledgement/
https://native-land.ca/resources/territory-acknowledgement/
>foreign and uniquely-European idea of land ownership on societies
The concept you are referring to as "land ownership" is not uniquely European, it has been present in African and Asian nation-states for ages, maybe it's Afro-Eurasian...
The concept you are referring to as "land ownership" is not uniquely European, it has been present in African and Asian nation-states for ages, maybe it's Afro-Eurasian...
This seems like a completely arbitrary view of land that is not more “true” than what you call the “colonial” view of land.
Hey all! Victor here (founder of Native Land). Check out the about page for more info about the org. Send your fixes anytime to us, we have a great research assistant who will address them in time! Also, we are funded totally through donations and grants so get in touch with us anytime on that front. Thanks!!
We also work to add more areas to the map over time — this isn’t a ‘finished’ project.
We also work to add more areas to the map over time — this isn’t a ‘finished’ project.
Hi Victor! This is such a great project. I posted a comment elsewhere about why I like it so much.
Will you be releasing more info about your research methods and pedagogical theory? Really interested to know more about how you make the sausage.
Also, wrt to Africa specifically, I do remember when I was doing history grad school about 10 years ago that one of the more provocative hypotheses at the time was that some or all tribes may be colonial constructs. Curious if you've engaged with that hypothesis, and more generally how you're going about mapping territories in Africa.
Great work, and I hope that you persevere and not let the haters get to you.
P.S.: Are you looking for any volunteers? I do full-stack web dev and have experience w/ Mapbox.
Will you be releasing more info about your research methods and pedagogical theory? Really interested to know more about how you make the sausage.
Also, wrt to Africa specifically, I do remember when I was doing history grad school about 10 years ago that one of the more provocative hypotheses at the time was that some or all tribes may be colonial constructs. Curious if you've engaged with that hypothesis, and more generally how you're going about mapping territories in Africa.
Great work, and I hope that you persevere and not let the haters get to you.
P.S.: Are you looking for any volunteers? I do full-stack web dev and have experience w/ Mapbox.
We have a volunteer slack channel -- shoot us a message to [email protected]! We can use some React Native devs if you are into that:)
Hi there! Loved your comment, you get some of the complexity this brings up! I am just going out travelling shortly so ill respond in detail in a day or so.
Will you add treaties under negotiation?
The BC Treaty Commission has a website with a map showing them at their various stages: https://www.bctreaty.ca/
The BC Treaty Commission has a website with a map showing them at their various stages: https://www.bctreaty.ca/
Thanks for making this! The links to more info about languages or treaties when you click on a territory is a nice touch.
The data will be open? (OpenData) or private?
Lots of great theoretical discussion going on in this thread in general. Basically -- if we people engage at all with the notion of what it means to be Indigenous, the historical complexities of territory and understandings of land, and the meaning of living with our ancestors in mind, then the map's done a good start! We are not proposing to offer final answers on any questions of what it means to be Indigenous, especially when it comes to worldwide questions, or "when" being Indigenous counts, or anything like that.
Is land a place of our ancestors? Is land something spiritual? Is our land defined by where we know the plants and animals and mountains? Is it something we can own, or never own in any way? How do we draw borders over history when borders shift? These are all interesting and great questions. Chew on them.
There are plenty of news stories out there if you want to read more about the early goals of the map, but essentially it was about education. This isn't trying to be a legal or academic resource -- it's not an attempt to map an "accurate" picture of Indigenous lands before colonization or anything like that. It's not depicting a particular year, either.
Increasingly, our goal is first of all to map Indigenous people according to their own conception of traditional territories. We don't mind overlaps and we don't mind being "wrong", since a lot of times this whole concept of traditional territory is difficult to pin down. Our goal is to have Indigenous folks look at the map and see themselves represented.
Everyone pointing out the blankness of Europe, Africa, and much of Asia are totally right to do so. This blankness is due to 1) a lack of resources. This was a volunteer project by myself alone for years, and it was hard enough to put together the dataset and then try to manage fixes for North America, let alone engaging with all the complexities of the entire world and all the histories and differences contained there. There's thousands of shapes on the map, and messing any of them up can have serious consequences for people. Then, 2) because it takes a lot of understanding and expertise to even attempt to map parts of the world where we don't have deep connections and knowledge. We can't just run roughshod into Africa and Asia and start mapping random ethnic groups when we know so little. Those connections take time to build. We have gotten caught up in trying to improve and add places where we are more able to define Indigenous, but it doesn't mean we think there are no Indigenous people in other places. It just means we are going to take longer to understand those places and we'd rather do it well than do it quickly. And 3), ensuring we are focusing on the right things. We aren't necessarily trying to get the whole world done and then be like "we're done! let's wrap up!", but rather to have the map and website managed by Indigenous people who can direct things in a good way for the long term. Which may mean focusing on capacity building more than map expansion, at times.
We really welcome fixes, thoughts, anger, and everything you have to direct our way -- don't hesitate to contact us. We are also really into building relationships with other interested organizations. This is very likely a project that will take many years to come to improve, and we are really driven to make something that is meaningful and valuable to Indigenous people. Again, we have no desire to be an academic or legal resource, and regarding this as such is misunderstanding the project.
Finally -- the data is totally open and available! Just check out our API page in the Resources section. But try to use the data in a way that understands how it's going to constantly shift, might be totally wrong, and is often not verified directly by communities.
Thanks everyone for the discussion!
Is land a place of our ancestors? Is land something spiritual? Is our land defined by where we know the plants and animals and mountains? Is it something we can own, or never own in any way? How do we draw borders over history when borders shift? These are all interesting and great questions. Chew on them.
There are plenty of news stories out there if you want to read more about the early goals of the map, but essentially it was about education. This isn't trying to be a legal or academic resource -- it's not an attempt to map an "accurate" picture of Indigenous lands before colonization or anything like that. It's not depicting a particular year, either.
Increasingly, our goal is first of all to map Indigenous people according to their own conception of traditional territories. We don't mind overlaps and we don't mind being "wrong", since a lot of times this whole concept of traditional territory is difficult to pin down. Our goal is to have Indigenous folks look at the map and see themselves represented.
Everyone pointing out the blankness of Europe, Africa, and much of Asia are totally right to do so. This blankness is due to 1) a lack of resources. This was a volunteer project by myself alone for years, and it was hard enough to put together the dataset and then try to manage fixes for North America, let alone engaging with all the complexities of the entire world and all the histories and differences contained there. There's thousands of shapes on the map, and messing any of them up can have serious consequences for people. Then, 2) because it takes a lot of understanding and expertise to even attempt to map parts of the world where we don't have deep connections and knowledge. We can't just run roughshod into Africa and Asia and start mapping random ethnic groups when we know so little. Those connections take time to build. We have gotten caught up in trying to improve and add places where we are more able to define Indigenous, but it doesn't mean we think there are no Indigenous people in other places. It just means we are going to take longer to understand those places and we'd rather do it well than do it quickly. And 3), ensuring we are focusing on the right things. We aren't necessarily trying to get the whole world done and then be like "we're done! let's wrap up!", but rather to have the map and website managed by Indigenous people who can direct things in a good way for the long term. Which may mean focusing on capacity building more than map expansion, at times.
We really welcome fixes, thoughts, anger, and everything you have to direct our way -- don't hesitate to contact us. We are also really into building relationships with other interested organizations. This is very likely a project that will take many years to come to improve, and we are really driven to make something that is meaningful and valuable to Indigenous people. Again, we have no desire to be an academic or legal resource, and regarding this as such is misunderstanding the project.
Finally -- the data is totally open and available! Just check out our API page in the Resources section. But try to use the data in a way that understands how it's going to constantly shift, might be totally wrong, and is often not verified directly by communities.
Thanks everyone for the discussion!
From their blog:
>A few notions that underlie this idea of being “Indigenous” in a particular place in Africa may seem obvious, but need stating:
>The importance of knowing ones’ ancestors and their ties to the land
> Knowledge of local power structures and traditions
> Knowledge of religious and spiritual traditions that are tied to land and living in a particular place
> Knowledge of language, ethnic traditions, and governance
> That language and ethnicity may intersect in unusual ways, and neither is necessarily an indicator of indigeneity
The criterion seems to be, "how much alienation of European modernity have you absorbed?", which is just kinda strange to me; everyone in Africa who is not an Afrikaner has been there for tens of thousands of years and has some measure of a relationship to their ethnic traditions, so what would be the threshold? Native Americans have a similar situation where there's a spectrum of "alienation".
The displacement of the more primordial human lineages such as the Hadza and Khoisan happened ~8,000 years ago in the Bantu expansion, from which the majority of African languages we know today descend.
>A few notions that underlie this idea of being “Indigenous” in a particular place in Africa may seem obvious, but need stating:
>The importance of knowing ones’ ancestors and their ties to the land
> Knowledge of local power structures and traditions
> Knowledge of religious and spiritual traditions that are tied to land and living in a particular place
> Knowledge of language, ethnic traditions, and governance
> That language and ethnicity may intersect in unusual ways, and neither is necessarily an indicator of indigeneity
The criterion seems to be, "how much alienation of European modernity have you absorbed?", which is just kinda strange to me; everyone in Africa who is not an Afrikaner has been there for tens of thousands of years and has some measure of a relationship to their ethnic traditions, so what would be the threshold? Native Americans have a similar situation where there's a spectrum of "alienation".
The displacement of the more primordial human lineages such as the Hadza and Khoisan happened ~8,000 years ago in the Bantu expansion, from which the majority of African languages we know today descend.
This is mapping at its best: challenging our spacial, social and temporal norms, in this case by subverting political geography.
Gone are the clear, neatly delineated boundaries of modern nation states. A new, equally clear yet very different geopolitical regime is presented. Contiguous territories that abut each other yet also kinda overlap (or sometimes really overlap). A three-part scheme that distinguishes between territory, language, and treaty.
This approach provokes so many questions. What does it mean to overlap (is it a process vs. a static reality, is it peaceful, etc.)? What is a territory and who defines it? What happens in the little slivers of land not covered by the translucent blobs? What happens in the waterways and lakes? Is the concept of "treaty land" universal in some way? What does non-treaty land mean?
We debated all these issues in grad school, and seeing it in an interactive map like this is all the more powerful. I hope that readers here see the questions that maps like this provoke as an asset rather than proof of fallibility.
Looking forward to reading more about the creator's research and pedagogical methods.
Gone are the clear, neatly delineated boundaries of modern nation states. A new, equally clear yet very different geopolitical regime is presented. Contiguous territories that abut each other yet also kinda overlap (or sometimes really overlap). A three-part scheme that distinguishes between territory, language, and treaty.
This approach provokes so many questions. What does it mean to overlap (is it a process vs. a static reality, is it peaceful, etc.)? What is a territory and who defines it? What happens in the little slivers of land not covered by the translucent blobs? What happens in the waterways and lakes? Is the concept of "treaty land" universal in some way? What does non-treaty land mean?
We debated all these issues in grad school, and seeing it in an interactive map like this is all the more powerful. I hope that readers here see the questions that maps like this provoke as an asset rather than proof of fallibility.
Looking forward to reading more about the creator's research and pedagogical methods.
[deleted]
For the non-Canadians (and possibly some Canadians too) who miss the reference: "Our home on native land" is an alternative lyric some people sing in the national anthem in place of the line "our home and native land".
The word "native" in the national anthem has nothing to do with indigenous peoples though -- it's a poor translation of "Terre de nos aïeux", which is really more along the lines of "land of our forefathers"... and is a reference specifically to the Quebecois, who settled in what is now Canada long before the British conquered them in 1759.
So... yeah, you can mangle the lyrics to make a point about European settlers, or you can keep the lyrics as written and make a snide remark about how the British should give Quebec back to the Quebecois. Neither version is really very flattering to the concept of Canada as a nation!
The word "native" in the national anthem has nothing to do with indigenous peoples though -- it's a poor translation of "Terre de nos aïeux", which is really more along the lines of "land of our forefathers"... and is a reference specifically to the Quebecois, who settled in what is now Canada long before the British conquered them in 1759.
So... yeah, you can mangle the lyrics to make a point about European settlers, or you can keep the lyrics as written and make a snide remark about how the British should give Quebec back to the Quebecois. Neither version is really very flattering to the concept of Canada as a nation!
> Neither version is really very flattering to the concept of Canada as a nation!
A Quebecois friend, after a bottle (or two) of wine, once told me there's no such thing as "Canadian Culture".
It's all either from Quebec or a response to something Quebec did.
How true is it?
A Quebecois friend, after a bottle (or two) of wine, once told me there's no such thing as "Canadian Culture".
It's all either from Quebec or a response to something Quebec did.
How true is it?
I'm no Canadian nationalist/patriot, and I have a lot of respect for Quebecois culture. But that is just stupid and offensive.
I don't think there's a single Canadian culture. There's many. And no, I don't think much of English Canadian culture comes "from" Quebec. In fact most people in English Canada have very little actual concept of Quebecois culture. The language divide is real.
Quebec is its own distinct nation & culture within Canada.
And frankly if Canada is defined most in response to something, it's the US and its revolution. Loyalist refugees firmed up the foundations of Upper Canada (Ontario) political culture, and the Canadian tradition of "peace, order, and good government" likely has its genesis as a response to the perceived excesses and dysfunctions of the American political tradition.
And all of this is leaving out the first nations, which was the original topic of TFA.
I don't think there's a single Canadian culture. There's many. And no, I don't think much of English Canadian culture comes "from" Quebec. In fact most people in English Canada have very little actual concept of Quebecois culture. The language divide is real.
Quebec is its own distinct nation & culture within Canada.
And frankly if Canada is defined most in response to something, it's the US and its revolution. Loyalist refugees firmed up the foundations of Upper Canada (Ontario) political culture, and the Canadian tradition of "peace, order, and good government" likely has its genesis as a response to the perceived excesses and dysfunctions of the American political tradition.
And all of this is leaving out the first nations, which was the original topic of TFA.
> Loyalist refugees
Weren't a lot of them criminals that were offered to leave the US? Or who harbored allegiance to a foreign regime? Wouldn't use the term "refugee" for that...
> the Canadian tradition of "peace, order, and good government"
Citation needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Acadians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Canada_Rebellion
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/24/americas/canada-unmarked-grav...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_the_Parliament_Buil...
Weren't a lot of them criminals that were offered to leave the US? Or who harbored allegiance to a foreign regime? Wouldn't use the term "refugee" for that...
> the Canadian tradition of "peace, order, and good government"
Citation needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Acadians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Canada_Rebellion
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/24/americas/canada-unmarked-grav...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_the_Parliament_Buil...
The Loyalists were people loyal to the English monarchy. They didn't harbour allegiance to a foreign regime but the current one. They fled because they were on the losing side of the war.
And not even necessarily to the English monarchy, just opposed to the American revolution or some aspects of it, or suffering economically because of it.
Refugees is precisely the right word for many (not all) of them.
Refugees is precisely the right word for many (not all) of them.
Ad on the losing side of history as well
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre
[deleted]
“Peace, Order, and Good Government” is the maxim of the Canadian government, like “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” is for the US government, and “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” is for the French. Pointing out that it hasn’t always lived up to that (nor have the US and France of course) is a non sequitur here.
That sounds rather like what some people say about American beer: There's no such thing as American beer; there's stuff they call "beer" but it really isn't.
You could probably make a case that there isn't much of a unified Canadian culture, but rather a large number of Canadian cultures. The indigenous peoples of Canada clearly have their own cultures; so do the Quebecois and the Acadians. After that you start getting more into "imported cultures"; there are large British and American influences across the country but also large minority groups which -- especially in the prairies -- have have made contributions to local cultures.
It has been said that where the USA is a melting pot which turns immigrants into Americans, Canada is a mosaic in which every piece retains its original nature; immigrants are encouraged to retain their cultural practices rather than discarding them in the name of conforming to "Canadian" culture.
You could probably make a case that there isn't much of a unified Canadian culture, but rather a large number of Canadian cultures. The indigenous peoples of Canada clearly have their own cultures; so do the Quebecois and the Acadians. After that you start getting more into "imported cultures"; there are large British and American influences across the country but also large minority groups which -- especially in the prairies -- have have made contributions to local cultures.
It has been said that where the USA is a melting pot which turns immigrants into Americans, Canada is a mosaic in which every piece retains its original nature; immigrants are encouraged to retain their cultural practices rather than discarding them in the name of conforming to "Canadian" culture.
For British Columbia, the province has a map that shows treaties in progress, which appear absent from this site:
https://www.bctreaty.ca/map
https://www.bctreaty.ca/map
The cultural engineers need to be careful, people might start wondering why the overlays are blank in Europe.
Is this a joke? You've just defined everyone who's not European as "native" which is a complete social construction and fabrication.
According to the map, there are 'native lands' only in the Americas and Australia. Europe, Asia or Africa are largely devoid of 'native lands'.
The map could be interesting as a historical resource. Selectively framing it in terms of 'native land' sadly turns it into one giant irredentist manifesto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irredentism
The map could be interesting as a historical resource. Selectively framing it in terms of 'native land' sadly turns it into one giant irredentist manifesto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irredentism
People keep forgetting there's such a thing as Asia and Africa.
Amazing data representation, but what does it mean? These boundaries were always fuzzy and constantly shifting, and whatever compromise or snapshots of history are made here, they may demonstrate the complexity and ubiquity of indigenous peoples in the Americas at the cost of suggesting these peoples exercised real territorial control usage patterns like those of Europeans of the time. Which sells them short. They found a different and perhaps better way to co-exist for many hundreds of years without formal states or territorial boundaries, largely without large-scale wars, plagues, and (for the most part) wholesale environmental collapse. We should study how this worked in the Americas without superimposing our ideas of land area control on them.
Mapping out current or traditional native territories is an almost hopeless task.
e.g. The Eastern Shoshone were, at the time of early European contact, in Alberta. Their territory on this map doesn't even touch Canada. Why? They were forced out (with violence) by the Iron Confederacy long enough ago that they no longer claim any land in Canada.
Tribal territories change, often radically and especially so when nomadic tribes are involved. Hard, immutable, and sharply defined borders are a modern construction. If territory wasn't actively defended, it was free for the taking. Some territories might have had such plentiful resources that they could be shared in peace, but most probably had to be fought for. That's why you see so many territories overlapping. Several tribes may have used a territory and still consider it "theirs", even if their control was never solid.
We tend to think of the land as offering limitless bounty to hunter-gatherers, but just the opposite was true. Compared to land under agricultural or pastoral use, even well-tended land used by hunter-gatherers was far less productive. If another tribe moved into your tribe's territory, that meant less food for your tribe. So, you had to defend your territory. Constantly.
New Guinea is a good place to study if you want to learn about traditional hunter gatherer societies because tribal territories and conflict remained distinct well into the 20th century and have been studied extensively. As late as the mid 20th century, when two strangers met it was customary for them to sit down and try to establish the nature of their relationship. Who was on whose land? Was the person who was not on their own land in any way related to anyone who belonged on that land? They'd recount genealogies for hours towards this end. It was serious business because, if the trespasser had no connection to anyone in the territory he had entered, the other person was socially obligated to run them out of the territory with violence.
Today, we mostly think of strangers as potential friends or, at least, people bringing money to local businesses. Hunter gatherers had to think of strangers as a resource drain that needed to be cut off for the good of their society. It's an alien way of thinking that we've largely forgotten, but it's reflected in this map. People died violently practically everywhere you see territories overlapping, and those borders are just a snapshot in time.
As for peaceful co-existence... This is a modern myth. Hunter-gather societies in New Guinea, although they had no large-scale war or pitched battles, had constant, internecine, low-intensity tribal conflict. The death-toll due to violence of this kind of conflict adds up over time. Jared Diamond, in one of his books, estimated that deaths due to violent conflict in the tribes he was studying was actually higher in just the first half of the twentieth century than in Germany through two world wars. The world wars were catastrophic technological horrors, but they had a start and an end. Not so with tribal conflict. It just goes on.
e.g. The Eastern Shoshone were, at the time of early European contact, in Alberta. Their territory on this map doesn't even touch Canada. Why? They were forced out (with violence) by the Iron Confederacy long enough ago that they no longer claim any land in Canada.
Tribal territories change, often radically and especially so when nomadic tribes are involved. Hard, immutable, and sharply defined borders are a modern construction. If territory wasn't actively defended, it was free for the taking. Some territories might have had such plentiful resources that they could be shared in peace, but most probably had to be fought for. That's why you see so many territories overlapping. Several tribes may have used a territory and still consider it "theirs", even if their control was never solid.
We tend to think of the land as offering limitless bounty to hunter-gatherers, but just the opposite was true. Compared to land under agricultural or pastoral use, even well-tended land used by hunter-gatherers was far less productive. If another tribe moved into your tribe's territory, that meant less food for your tribe. So, you had to defend your territory. Constantly.
New Guinea is a good place to study if you want to learn about traditional hunter gatherer societies because tribal territories and conflict remained distinct well into the 20th century and have been studied extensively. As late as the mid 20th century, when two strangers met it was customary for them to sit down and try to establish the nature of their relationship. Who was on whose land? Was the person who was not on their own land in any way related to anyone who belonged on that land? They'd recount genealogies for hours towards this end. It was serious business because, if the trespasser had no connection to anyone in the territory he had entered, the other person was socially obligated to run them out of the territory with violence.
Today, we mostly think of strangers as potential friends or, at least, people bringing money to local businesses. Hunter gatherers had to think of strangers as a resource drain that needed to be cut off for the good of their society. It's an alien way of thinking that we've largely forgotten, but it's reflected in this map. People died violently practically everywhere you see territories overlapping, and those borders are just a snapshot in time.
As for peaceful co-existence... This is a modern myth. Hunter-gather societies in New Guinea, although they had no large-scale war or pitched battles, had constant, internecine, low-intensity tribal conflict. The death-toll due to violence of this kind of conflict adds up over time. Jared Diamond, in one of his books, estimated that deaths due to violent conflict in the tribes he was studying was actually higher in just the first half of the twentieth century than in Germany through two world wars. The world wars were catastrophic technological horrors, but they had a start and an end. Not so with tribal conflict. It just goes on.
I have a hard time reading "peaceful co-existence" into the post you are responding to, particularly since conflicts between aboriginal groups are a recognized part of their history.
What we don't seem to understand very well is the nature of territorial claims prior to European contact. It is overly simplistic to paint these aboriginal groups as small tribes that claimed small geographic spheres since they ranged from nomadic groups that migrated across large territories, to small villages dependent upon fishing or agriculture, to relatively advanced large cities. Yet regardless of the type of society they formed, our understanding of how they regarded their geographic sphere is tainted by the mostly Western histories written of them from the time of contact. Not only are these histories tainted by religion and politics, but they are tainted by how those historians understood the world.
What we don't seem to understand very well is the nature of territorial claims prior to European contact. It is overly simplistic to paint these aboriginal groups as small tribes that claimed small geographic spheres since they ranged from nomadic groups that migrated across large territories, to small villages dependent upon fishing or agriculture, to relatively advanced large cities. Yet regardless of the type of society they formed, our understanding of how they regarded their geographic sphere is tainted by the mostly Western histories written of them from the time of contact. Not only are these histories tainted by religion and politics, but they are tainted by how those historians understood the world.
Maybe it's relative geographic stability (e.g., not moving around very much)? But it seems like that's pretty arbitrary depending on how much you zoom out--i.e., if you zoom out wide to all of Europe, Europeans were very stable for a very long time, and if you zoom in tightly on a given Native American tribe, they probably migrated over a wide geographical area.