4 ms·

Every country on the globe has an indigenous people. Nearly every area in the globe was occupied by an earlier group before it was occupied by the present occu

Every country on the globe has an indigenous people. Nearly every area in the globe was occupied by an earlier group before it was occupied by the present occupying group. Many areas had wave after wave of occupying group, some eliminating the previous group, some merging with the previous group. The people now "Greek" have little relationship to the ancient Greeks, the Mid East is mess, India has fabric of different groups, China was conquered by multiple waves of "barbarians", etc. Many of these conquests and settlement processes have unspeakably cruel. European process stand out for being the largest and most recent but not necessarily otherwise. The cause for hope is that just hearing all this, most people want something better.

mobilefriendly 6y ago
Most recent? China is destroying traditional Tibet (which it invaded) through mass migration of ethnic Han.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  Well, it would like to. The Han suffer from altitude-related health problems and die at much, much higher rates than the Tibetans.
  - pm90 6y ago
    Wait is this really true? Fascinating if it is. It seemed a little weird that China would want to “settle” Tibet considering that the most economically prosperous regions of the Country are on the Coastal regions. What are the incentives to abandon your home and move to a strange land?
    - magicsmoke 6y ago
      1. Tibet is high ground. Source of China's rivers and a security nightmare if someone ever puts artillery up there. 2. Nationalistic pride. A lot of modern China's identity is tied up with using the perceived territories of the old Qing empire as a baseline measure for the country's standing in the world. Tibet was part of the Qing empire (disregarding how pre-modern empires controlled territory in arrangements that gave local rulers much more leeway than modern nations) so not having Tibet as part of modern China would be seen as a major defeat. Try asking a Chinese national to explain why the PRC fought to keep Tibet but not Mongolia despite both being part of the old Qing empire and watch the mental gymnastics.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - yorwba 6y ago
        Those strategic considerations explain why China would prefer to keep Tibet under their control, but that could also be achieved by the Tibetan members of the CCP ruling the region, Tibetan members of the PLA patrolling the borders, Tibetan members of the MSS surveilling the population, and so on. It's not clear whether having large numbers of Han Chinese migrate there is necessary or even helpful. (It's not like Han Chinese have never revolted against the government.) The reasons for each individual migrant choosing to go to Tibet instead of staying in their home provinces are more likely to be economic: better-paying jobs in tourism, mining, hydropower, ...
        thaumasiotes 6y ago
        > China would prefer to keep Tibet under their control, but that could also be achieved by the Tibetan members of the CCP ruling the region, Tibetan members of the PLA patrolling the borders, Tibetan members of the MSS surveilling the population, and so on. You're just asking for Tibet to revolt at that point. Obviously you know this, but longstanding imperial Chinese policy was that no official was ever allowed to administer his own home province. There was good reason for that. > The reasons for each individual migrant choosing to go to Tibet instead of staying in their home provinces are more likely to be economic: better-paying jobs in tourism, mining, hydropower, ... Some of them are just assigned as settlers by the government. I don't know how significant the phenomenon is, but e.g. a friend of mine told me that her father had been in the army, and upon leaving he was settled in Xinjiang.
        yorwba 6y ago
        > Obviously you know this, but longstanding imperial Chinese policy was that no official was ever allowed to administer his own home province. The PRC requires that "The chairman of an autonomous region, the prefect of an autonomous prefecture or the head of an autonomous county shall be a citizen of the nationality exercising regional autonomy in the area concerned." http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372990.htm http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/... I'm not sure whether subdivisions in an autonomous area are automatically autonomous as well, but if so, that would require local Tibetan governments at all administrative levels to be lead by Tibetans. That doesn't mean they can't use the old tactic of promoting officials across regional borders to prevent individuals from building up their own little kingdoms. E.g. the current chairman of Tibet is a Tibetan from Yunnan, so technically he isn't ruling his home province. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Dalha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Dalha > her father had been in the army, and upon leaving he was settled in Xinjiang. How does settlement work in that case? Did they give him a plot of land to farm or a job at a SOE or did they simply order him to stay in Xinjiang and find some way to make a living there?
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      > It seemed a little weird that China would want to “settle” Tibet considering that the most economically prosperous regions of the Country are on the Coastal regions. What are the incentives to abandon your home and move to a strange land? If you're interested in the issue, the term of art is "China proper". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_proper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_proper I asked someone once what the point of China owning Xinjiang was. He responded "we don't want them to attack us". For Tibet, I agree with magicsmoke that it is incredibly significant as the source of both of China's rivers. I can't imagine China willingly ceding control over those.
- foobar_ 6y ago
  Well that's technically an ethnocide. There's plenty of that happening as well. The funniest pattern you can see in news - everyone talks about the other, while ignoring their own mess. Chinese media will bring up Native Americans while American media will bring up Tibet or Honk Kong or Taiwan. Middle East Muslims will complain about Palestine while conveniently ignoring Assyrians.
  - deathgrips 6y ago
    Cultural genocide is genocide as defined by the UN.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    > Chinese media will bring up Native Americans while American media will bring up Tibet or Honk Kong or Taiwan. Are you suggesting that native american genocide isn't a hot topic in America?
jgwil2 6y ago
> The people now "Greek" have little relationship to the ancient Greeks The language of modern Greeks is directly descended from that of the ancients. From classical times through the hellenistic period, the Byzantine Empire up to today there is a continuity of culture.
Konohamaru 6y ago
> The people now "Greek" have little relationship to the ancient Greeks Molecular anthropology gainsays this statement. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/greeks-really-do-have-near-mythical-origins-ancient-dna-reveals https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/greeks-really-do-hav...
toasterlovin 6y ago
> The people now "Greek" have little relationship to the ancient Greeks I don’t believe this is true, FWIW. If I’m not mistaken, most of the Mediterranean as had relatively little genetic replacement since the Indo-Europeans first stablished themselves. There has been cultural turnover in the Middle East, but this has mostly taken the form of elites engaging in tax farming conquered populations, rather than genocide and replacement.
- bawana 6y ago
  The ancient Greeks were distinctly different from the modern day Greek gene pool. For 400 years, Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire. During that time the Turks were benevolent rulers, allowing the Greeks all the customs and privileges they previously had, except for paying tax to the Turks. Intermarriage was allowed and even the local Turkish bureaucrats were encouraged to have (take?) Greek wives. Much of the modern Greek cuisine comes from turkey and the Middle East. Ancient Greeks had a high proportion of blond and redheads. Today, that is a rare sight.
  - foobar_ 6y ago
    I doubt it. Blondness is evolved for colder climates, that means the northern europe. Eastern europe has some slav influence so they might be blonde. This is the same reason why polar bears are white and other bears are brown or black. Southern europe has the mediterranean climate and so does turkey, isreal, lebanon and morocco. Being a black person in snow would attract predators and they would die so people with lighter skins who could camouflage easily in the background would survive.
    - toasterlovin 6y ago
      FWIW, nobody actually knows why fair hair and complexions evolved. There are various hypotheses which sound more or less plausible, but that’s all they are. This is not a settled question by any measure.
Bayart 6y ago
>The people now "Greek" have little relationship to the ancient Greeks, the Mid East is mess, India has fabric of different groups, China was conquered by multiple waves of "barbarians", etc. All the areas you're quoting have changed very little since the Bronze Age.
tasogare 6y ago
> China was conquered by multiple waves of "barbarians" The fact the imperial power belonged to foreign dynasties (mainly the Yuan and the Qing) doesn’t mean the people itself and its culture was erased. Actually in case of Manchu the reverse happened with the ruling elite taking Chinese culture while forgetting it’s own culture.

mobilefriendly 6y ago

Most recent? China is destroying traditional Tibet (which it invaded) through mass migration of ethnic Han.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
Well, it would like to. The Han suffer from altitude-related health problems and die at much, much higher rates than the Tibetans.
- pm90 6y ago
  Wait is this really true? Fascinating if it is. It seemed a little weird that China would want to “settle” Tibet considering that the most economically prosperous regions of the Country are on the Coastal regions. What are the incentives to abandon your home and move to a strange land?
  - magicsmoke 6y ago
    1. Tibet is high ground. Source of China's rivers and a security nightmare if someone ever puts artillery up there. 2. Nationalistic pride. A lot of modern China's identity is tied up with using the perceived territories of the old Qing empire as a baseline measure for the country's standing in the world. Tibet was part of the Qing empire (disregarding how pre-modern empires controlled territory in arrangements that gave local rulers much more leeway than modern nations) so not having Tibet as part of modern China would be seen as a major defeat. Try asking a Chinese national to explain why the PRC fought to keep Tibet but not Mongolia despite both being part of the old Qing empire and watch the mental gymnastics.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - yorwba 6y ago
      Those strategic considerations explain why China would prefer to keep Tibet under their control, but that could also be achieved by the Tibetan members of the CCP ruling the region, Tibetan members of the PLA patrolling the borders, Tibetan members of the MSS surveilling the population, and so on. It's not clear whether having large numbers of Han Chinese migrate there is necessary or even helpful. (It's not like Han Chinese have never revolted against the government.) The reasons for each individual migrant choosing to go to Tibet instead of staying in their home provinces are more likely to be economic: better-paying jobs in tourism, mining, hydropower, ...
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
        > China would prefer to keep Tibet under their control, but that could also be achieved by the Tibetan members of the CCP ruling the region, Tibetan members of the PLA patrolling the borders, Tibetan members of the MSS surveilling the population, and so on. You're just asking for Tibet to revolt at that point. Obviously you know this, but longstanding imperial Chinese policy was that no official was ever allowed to administer his own home province. There was good reason for that. > The reasons for each individual migrant choosing to go to Tibet instead of staying in their home provinces are more likely to be economic: better-paying jobs in tourism, mining, hydropower, ... Some of them are just assigned as settlers by the government. I don't know how significant the phenomenon is, but e.g. a friend of mine told me that her father had been in the army, and upon leaving he was settled in Xinjiang.
        yorwba 6y ago
        > Obviously you know this, but longstanding imperial Chinese policy was that no official was ever allowed to administer his own home province. The PRC requires that "The chairman of an autonomous region, the prefect of an autonomous prefecture or the head of an autonomous county shall be a citizen of the nationality exercising regional autonomy in the area concerned." http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372990.htm http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/... I'm not sure whether subdivisions in an autonomous area are automatically autonomous as well, but if so, that would require local Tibetan governments at all administrative levels to be lead by Tibetans. That doesn't mean they can't use the old tactic of promoting officials across regional borders to prevent individuals from building up their own little kingdoms. E.g. the current chairman of Tibet is a Tibetan from Yunnan, so technically he isn't ruling his home province. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Dalha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Dalha > her father had been in the army, and upon leaving he was settled in Xinjiang. How does settlement work in that case? Did they give him a plot of land to farm or a job at a SOE or did they simply order him to stay in Xinjiang and find some way to make a living there?
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > It seemed a little weird that China would want to “settle” Tibet considering that the most economically prosperous regions of the Country are on the Coastal regions. What are the incentives to abandon your home and move to a strange land? If you're interested in the issue, the term of art is "China proper". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_proper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_proper I asked someone once what the point of China owning Xinjiang was. He responded "we don't want them to attack us". For Tibet, I agree with magicsmoke that it is incredibly significant as the source of both of China's rivers. I can't imagine China willingly ceding control over those.
foobar_ 6y ago
Well that's technically an ethnocide. There's plenty of that happening as well. The funniest pattern you can see in news - everyone talks about the other, while ignoring their own mess. Chinese media will bring up Native Americans while American media will bring up Tibet or Honk Kong or Taiwan. Middle East Muslims will complain about Palestine while conveniently ignoring Assyrians.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  Cultural genocide is genocide as defined by the UN.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  > Chinese media will bring up Native Americans while American media will bring up Tibet or Honk Kong or Taiwan. Are you suggesting that native american genocide isn't a hot topic in America?

jgwil2 6y ago

> The people now "Greek" have little relationship to the ancient Greeks The language of modern Greeks is directly descended from that of the ancients. From classical times through the hellenistic period, the Byzantine Empire up to today there is a continuity of culture.

Konohamaru 6y ago

> The people now "Greek" have little relationship to the ancient Greeks Molecular anthropology gainsays this statement. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/greeks-really-do-have-near-mythical-origins-ancient-dna-reveals https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/greeks-really-do-hav...

toasterlovin 6y ago

> The people now "Greek" have little relationship to the ancient Greeks I don’t believe this is true, FWIW. If I’m not mistaken, most of the Mediterranean as had relatively little genetic replacement since the Indo-Europeans first stablished themselves. There has been cultural turnover in the Middle East, but this has mostly taken the form of elites engaging in tax farming conquered populations, rather than genocide and replacement.

bawana 6y ago
The ancient Greeks were distinctly different from the modern day Greek gene pool. For 400 years, Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire. During that time the Turks were benevolent rulers, allowing the Greeks all the customs and privileges they previously had, except for paying tax to the Turks. Intermarriage was allowed and even the local Turkish bureaucrats were encouraged to have (take?) Greek wives. Much of the modern Greek cuisine comes from turkey and the Middle East. Ancient Greeks had a high proportion of blond and redheads. Today, that is a rare sight.
- foobar_ 6y ago
  I doubt it. Blondness is evolved for colder climates, that means the northern europe. Eastern europe has some slav influence so they might be blonde. This is the same reason why polar bears are white and other bears are brown or black. Southern europe has the mediterranean climate and so does turkey, isreal, lebanon and morocco. Being a black person in snow would attract predators and they would die so people with lighter skins who could camouflage easily in the background would survive.
  - toasterlovin 6y ago
    FWIW, nobody actually knows why fair hair and complexions evolved. There are various hypotheses which sound more or less plausible, but that’s all they are. This is not a settled question by any measure.

Bayart 6y ago

>The people now "Greek" have little relationship to the ancient Greeks, the Mid East is mess, India has fabric of different groups, China was conquered by multiple waves of "barbarians", etc. All the areas you're quoting have changed very little since the Bronze Age.

tasogare 6y ago

> China was conquered by multiple waves of "barbarians" The fact the imperial power belonged to foreign dynasties (mainly the Yuan and the Qing) doesn’t mean the people itself and its culture was erased. Actually in case of Manchu the reverse happened with the ruling elite taking Chinese culture while forgetting it’s own culture.