19 ms·

Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

123 points by guerrilla 6y ago

hhernandez 6y ago
"Indigenous Nations" are ethnotribal-pseudostates. They are racist and problematic. Claiming that some land is "Native Land" is the same as claiming some land is "White land". This is not flamebait. The reservation system is a relic of a time when both the white European settlers AND the Natives saw themselves as separate enough to be unable to live together in a single Nation. It is time we undo these artificial racial separations. As for my claim that asserting the existence of Native Land is equivalent to asserting the existence of White Land, well, if we choose to treat people equally, why would certain prohibitions applied to one race not apply equally to others? If we decide that White land is a racist concept, which it is, how can we not apply that same reasoning to everyone else, unless we are racially targeting White people?
- joshuakelly 6y ago
  Please try to make high quality comments on Hacker News. Here are the public guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html There are plenty of high quality, _critical_ comments and discussion to be made on this submission and broader subject - why eschew that in favor of flamebait? edit: You've since edited your comment, but I still think it could be substantially improved if you want an interesting (and provoking!) discussion.
  - Gunax 6y ago
    I don't agree that's its flamebait, and I am even skeptical of the concept of flamebait as one person's flamebait is another's honest opinion. In fact I think the comment in question is a strait forward and honest opinion that is just missing the usual euphemisms and massaging that usually accompany such controversial topics. And I also think that questioning whether tribal pseudo sub-states should exist is completely relevant to a discussion about tribal reservations.
    - joshuakelly 6y ago
      The original comment has changed significantly. It was much more terse in its initial posting. I think another important factor to keep in mind here is age of account.
      - Gunax 6y ago
        I also read it in it's initial form, and my reply was based on that. I hate to detail so much from the article content. I strongly disagree with the flagging of that comment. Accusing a nation of being a racist ethno-state is completely on topic, even if controversial. And we regularly see the same accusations levied at America or Israel (I would not want those removed either). I fear a double standard is developing.
        S33V 6y ago
        Is there any way to refute a flagging? I think the original comment spawned some great conversation which relies on it being visible.
        jessaustin 6y ago
        If you had more karma, you could "vouch" for the comment. If enough people were to do so, the [flagged] status would disappear. Failing that, you could email the mods to draw their attention to unfairly flagged comments. They do have good taste, however, so they're likely to leave the comment in question [0] flagged. Unlike IRL, the system at HN is rigged against racist dog whistles. If one is ever tempted to write the sentence "This is not flamebait.", one should think more deeply. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23794262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23794262
- dlivingston 6y ago
  Can you explain further? I don’t see how you reach your conclusion from your premise. Or, how you reach your premise at all.
  - 627467 6y ago
    I do want to hear more from more versed people since I hear arguments in favour of indigenous rights that are variations of pro-(insert your ethnogroup) rights. Why are some pro-ethno rights alright and others not? Is it that because some ethnogroups are considered in disadvantage and hence deserving special rights? I understand the concept Affirmative Action, is this what we are talking about?
    - tspike 6y ago
      "Some ethnogroups are considered in disadvantage" is one way to put it, but it's minimizing it. We're talking about groups that were specifically targeted for their ethnicity: murdered, raped, disenfranchised, and exiled (with no hyperbole). You can't decimate a group based on ethnicity and then ask why they deserve special treatment for their ethnicity. Further, they're not even getting special treatment- they are having the sovereignty and jurisdiction our _own system_ assigned them validated and reaffirmed after having it unlawfully stolen from them. You can argue that a tribal government should adopt open, non-ethnocentric policies, but that is their decision to make, not ours.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      First of all, there's a complication here in that some Indian reservations were created by the Indian nations themselves (particularly in the Pacific Northwest), while others were created as part of the genocide of Indians carried out by Europeans in the Americas. So let's focus first on the second category. Imagine that some people from elsewhere showed up, rounded up you and all your relatives and everybody else living within a 400 mile radius, killed 80% of them, then marched the rest to a patch of land you'd never seen before and said "you'll be living here now, it's yours in perpetuity". Then a hundred or more years go by, and the descendants of those people say to your descendants "Well, actually, that land we said was yours isn't really yours, and so the problems with resources, jobs, social order, purpose and meaning you folks have had for a while are going to get worse". And then someone shows up and says "why should these particular ethnic groups get treated differently from any other?" If you then turn your attention to the self-created reservations, the story is a bit different. Now imagine that some newcomers show up in your part of the world. They seem ready to fight, and you've heard stories from people who have travelled east over the mountains that they are brutal nasty SOBs. The newcomers say that they are ready to strike a deal, so you decide that this makes more sense. You tell them that they are welcome to come and live in this area, but that you want a treaty that recognizes that you will reserve areas for your own people, along with certain distributed rights like fishing. The newcomers sign the deal, apparently quite happy with it. 200 years later, your descendants realize that the treaty rights are no longer recognized, and that the newcomers have changed everything so much with their logging, mining and dams that even the original terms of the treaty don't much sense any more. And then someone shows up and wonders why your people should treated any differently from anyone else.
- baddox 6y ago
  > If we decide that White land is a racist concept, which it is, how can we not apply that same reasoning to everyone else I think there's a pretty obvious difference between referring to land in historical North America as "Native land" and calling it "White land." And the specific label doesn't matter much, you could say "European land" or "colonized land" and the point remains unchanged. Your comment seems like the standard appeal to "colorblindness," as if one group of people can invade or otherwise oppress another group, actively set up a vastly unequal distribution of resources and freedoms, and then claim that the only way forward is to deliberately ignore the history and even the existence of the different groups. But of course, to ignore those now is to explicitly support the status quo, and the status quo is still dominated by the historical unequal distribution of resources and freedoms between the groups.
  - hhernandez 6y ago
    What happened in the past, good or bad, is unchangeable. The only way forward is a colorblind approach as building specific policies around race simply encourage further racial division and entrenchment. Preventing racial discrimination (a good thing) should not lead into encouraging racial division, but unfortunately our well meaning desire to be equitable often causes that to happen.
    - baddox 6y ago
      > What happened in the past, good or bad, is unchangeable. The only way forward is a colorblind approach as building specific policies around race simply encourage further racial division and entrenchment. Of course that's definitely not the only way forward. You can fix unequal distributions of resources by, well, redistributing the resources, which requires acknowledging the existence of different groups and the history of how those groups have distributed resources among themselves. And note that acknowledging the existence of a social construct that distinguishes people into different groups does not imply condoning that social construct. It's not that radical. If a thief steals my car, the way forward is to recognize who is the thief and who is the victim, and to redistribute the resources accordingly. That does not "simply encourage further division and entrenchment between thieves and victims of theft," or if it does, I think that's okay. We don't say "hey, I'm blind to the differences between thieves and victims, we're all just human beings."
- jcranmer 6y ago
  Funnily enough, we tried disestablishing the reservation systems. It was the Native Americans who objected to that.
Pfhreak 6y ago
Neat map! Some usability issues -- if one border is entirely within another border, e.g. near Seattle, I couldn't figure out how to click it. Also, I wish the map was larger without fullscreening. Edit: The title also seems to be not quite right, as the map covers more than North America.
- sxv 6y ago
  Agreed, I was thinking that one possible solution to the first issue could be to have a layer immediately sent to the back upon being clicked.
simonsarris 6y ago
Somehow I doubt the Russians, English, Spanish, French etc that arrived in the Americas landed on a Westphalian continent. I think maps like this give the wrong impression. Wabanaki (among others) invited French colonists to settle Quebec in part to check (and perhaps attack) the Mohawk, among other conflicts. ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars I think it is almost universally agreed that the French treated the natives better and more collaboratively than the English, who took a different tone. It's somewhat a shame that the English won that balance of power so early. I wonder how it would be different today if Canada was still New France.
- cpursley 6y ago
  Please stop with the facts and history written by white men, it has no place in identity politics.
  - dang 6y ago
    Please don't post any more unsubstantive comments and flamebait to HN. It helps nothing.
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  Unfortunately this is a time for history to be oversimplified, and in some cases rewritten.
- baddox 6y ago
  This map contains a lot of overlapping and very rounded regions that I think convey that it's rough areas of settlement rather than some internationally-recognized partition of the land.
  - jml7c5 6y ago
    I wonder if something more like a smooth probability map would make more sense, rather than overlapping borders. The hard lines can give an unreasonable sense of certainty, even if the intent is to indicate uncertainty.
seebetter 6y ago
Think about how ‘savage’ and masculine one must be to walk from Asia to North America thousands of years ago. And I’m using savage in the modern, positive connotation. Human society was beyond brutal then. Humans are dangerous and vile and ridiculous and tribal. There’s nothing unique about that in any race or culture (maybe a few exceptions). We can’t know how the past being different would affect the future. Had “Native America” become a nation, it could had created substantially worse or maybe better systems. We did create an incredibly fair system with modern technology and medicine that’s saved hundreds of millions of lives. We can’t disregard all the progress and freedom our systems have brought to the individual. America is the best country in the world because it defends natural rights. We have a long way to go but we can only get to a better world with John Locke and classical liberalism.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Who suggests that any individual person walked "from Asia to North America"? Beringia itself was inhabited for millennia, even after the glaciers receded enough to allow walking south. Groups of humans could have moved a mile per year and covered the distance. (Although, it seems more likely that they moved back and forth much farther in a sort of Brownian fashion.) Also, many theorists suggest that much of the "fastest" migration was via watercraft along the west coast of the Americas. America is something quite different from "the best country in the world". It would be more accurate (although still too simplistic) to say that we're the most successful "bad guys". Sure, there are other people who fight unnecessary wars of aggression for the commercial interests of privileged ruling-class assholes. It's just that we've fought so many, which have resulted in the violent deaths of so many millions. Eventually quantity has a quality of its own. It is interesting that one's response to this basically anthropological map would be "USA #1!?!"
- minerjoe 6y ago
  > "an incredibly fair system" I almost fell out of my chair laughing.
  - seebetter 6y ago
    Name another country that's built better systems. Of course, LIFE isn't fair. But be careful tearing down classical liberalism hoping that some centralized authority will dictate the perfect expression of how a human being should exist.
jessaustin 6y ago
The territory of the Hesquiaht is interesting. They seem to have been a largely maritime tribe...
Gunax 6y ago
So the case at hand is about the prosecution of a tribal member by the state court. While I think the SC made the correct legal decision, I am worried about the implications of this. Do we really want to have separate legal systems based on ethnicity or tribal membership? What if the tribe legalizes marijuana but the state doesn't? What if the punishments in one are more severe than another? Typically the jurisdiction of crime is based on territory, not ethnicity. Im not a lawyer and I'm not American, so I could of course be completely misunderstanding what the implications are.
- 627467 6y ago
  > Do we really want to have separate legal systems based on ethnicity or tribal membership? And how does one certify identity/ethnicity and why won't individuals claim as many (or as little) of them?
  - Gunax 6y ago
    Well it's certified based on tribal membership, which is an actual, de jure status. When I wrote ethnicity I am just acknowledging that it's so closely tied to tribal membership that they are effectively the same. I imagine the tribes can grant status to anyone they like as a sovereign nation, just like America can grant citizenship to whomever it decides.
  - cowboysauce 6y ago
    In the exact same way that every country in the world operates. The tribal government sets the criteria that must be met to be a member of the tribe.
    - 627467 6y ago
      I see, so, just like how around the world peers recognize the ability of a self-proclaimed nation of define their own nationality so in this case the US is the peer that recognizes tribal government sovereign authority to define who is has membership in it (among other things). Does tribal governments not have legal jurisdictions? Judicial institutions?
29athrowaway 6y ago
I hope they add more nations at some point. I know of some missing populations in this map.
chrisco255 6y ago
The idea of the stable borders is so new. The Ottoman Empire still controlled much of the middle east before World War I. The British Empire was also still quite expansive at the beginning of that war (and into WW2). The fact that so much of the world speaks Latin-derived languages (French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Italian...nearly 1 billion people in total) is a relic of the Roman empire's own expansive conquering of territory. Just over 150 years ago, Germany wasn't even a single nation state, but rather a collection of loose territories. Among the native americans themselves, there were constant warring, slavery, even human sacrifice and in some cases cannibalism. And this is, for example, how the Iroquois treated prisoners of war: "The captive would be executed after a day-long torture session of burning and removing body parts, which the prisoner was expected to bear with stoicism and nobility (an expectation not usually met) before being scalped alive. Hot sand was applied to the exposed skull and they were finally killed by cutting out their hearts. Afterward, the victim's body was cut and eaten by the community. The practice of ritual torture and execution, together with cannibalism, ended some time in the early 18th century." For some reason, some people believe that whatever "borders" existed several hundred years ago should be brought forward to modern times. These folks consistently craft a narrative that paints the U.S. in a bad light while ignoring the very real crimes against humanity that occurred on practically every square foot of ground across the globe, going back thousands of years. From a certain perspective, all of human history can be summed up as an endless series of blood feuds.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
  Seems like there is quite a bit of fragility and anxiety with this thread, mostly culminating into getting the US out of the spotlight, and talking about humanity through all periods.
  - wpm 6y ago
    Fragility is accusing anyone who disagrees with you or presents a slightly impure viewpoint of fragility.
- flatline 6y ago
  Indian land was taken over the course of hundreds of years of false promises and violated treaties. European settlers were predominately the ones drawing the maps, and consistently taking what was not only not theirs to begin with, but what they had agreed belonged to the native tribes and then took anyway. We're not talking about thousands of years of human history, we're talking about very real injustices that are still being perpetuated by one current-day party (largely the states) against another (various tribes). Would you prefer the tribes resort to rebellion and bloodshed to reclaim what is theirs by treaty? Would you prefer that contracts and treaties are simply ignored when inconvenient?
PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
This map should really have some dates on it. It might represent the state of things within, say, a 100 year period (or so) of European arrival, but it doesn't convey the history of humans in North America. I read the FAQ and could not find any information on what time period is represented here. If someone showed you a map of Europe or China marked out like this, it would be natural to ask "when is this?" None of that does anything to ameliorate the genocide that was perpetrated against the people living in the Americans when europeans travelled and then settled here. But it's also important not to portray the prior 10k years or more of human settlement in the Americas as static and unchanging.
- rexpop 6y ago
  I appreciate this point. In a similar vein, DNA services like 23andMe should also come with dates on them. In fact, frankly, any mention of ethnicity should come with a date. No cultural group–bound by genes of memes–is truly the same river twice.
- mobilefriendly 6y ago
  Yes, for example the Seminoles weren't native to Florida they were bands of Creeks pushed there by the Upper Creeks and Europeans in the 1700s, and were also invited by the Spanish. They weren't even named as a distinct group until the 1770s. There were many other Florida tribes.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  As an example, Southern Athabascan speakers(e.g. Apache, Navajo) only migrated from what is approximately modern day Canada to the American Southwest within the time frame that Europeans were already on the continent(~1500 AD).
- marc_abonce 6y ago
  Yup. At a quick glance I think there are some inconsistencies with the dating. For example, the map portrays Guanajuato as inhabited by Guamares which hasn't really been the case for centuries, or at least there is no recognized group that self identifies as such anymore. Conversely, the Huron-Wendat are portrayed to live in the St. Lawrence, as is the case now, rather than around Lake Huron as they did in the 1600's. So both cases can't be simultaneously correct. I think the map is meant to portray modern locations, but I'm not entirely sure.
m0zg 6y ago
Wait until the indigenous folks start going back further in time and revising their own conquests. That should be fun to watch. Oh, and they had slavery too, in case where their enemies weren't exterminated outright or even eaten sometimes. Quote from Wikipedia: "Native American groups often enslaved war captives, whom they primarily used for small-scale labor. Others however would stake themselves in gambling situations when they had nothing else, which would put them into servitude for a short time, or in some cases for life; captives were also sometimes tortured as part of religious rites, and these sometimes involved ritual cannibalism." And when Europeans arrived, natives held African slaves, too, as well as sold their own _native_ war captives to Europeans, much like Africans did in Africa. I wonder what they think of the idea of "reparations". But I digress. So when someone says that Mount Rushmore belongs to the Lakota tribe, if we aren't willing to let the sleeping dogs lie, other tribes might want Lakota to revise that statement. Unwind it far enough, and who knows what tribe settled there first (assuming it even exists nowadays). Cursory search suggests that Black Hills (now Mount Rushmore) was first settled by Arikara, and then, quote: "The Arikara in the Black Hills was followed by the Crow, Pawnee, Kiowa, Cheyenne, Lakota Sioux, and then to the United States. The Lakota Sioux arrived in the region after getting kicked out of Minnesota in the late 1770s by other tribes. The Sioux took over the region after they drove out the Cheyenne Indian nation. The Sioux forced the Cheyenne to move West." So yeah, if we're going to unwind, why stop at when the United States took the land. Let's unwind all the way. Or maybe, just maybe, the SCOTUS decision was idiotic.
- dang 6y ago
  Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? We've asked you so many times that I'm not sure why we haven't banned you yet. No doubt that's because you've also posted good things. Unfortunately, though, your account really stands out as damaging this place, and if you don't fix this, we're going to have to. This thread is a great example because while there are commenters on both sides of the issue, your post is the one that stands out as really dragging the discussion down to nastiness. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- minerjoe 6y ago
  Maybe stop learning about Native American history from Wikipedia and a "cursory search". You can always find something on the web to "support" your argument. The harder path is to actually do the research to understand the nuances and most importantly, in this case, to learn how much of history is highly innacurate and written by the conquerors.
cmehdy 6y ago
This is a cool website, and if people go past the landing page they'll find a trove of information and good descriptions of the initiative, as well as rebuttal of the criticisms I've read here so far. For example, the website is a collaborative effort between multiple entities, and re: map details, they state clearly that "These maps are fluid and ever changing and should be used as an education tool to create dialogue around reconciliation."[0] They also don't claim to show every single thing on the landing page. For example, living in Quebec, clicking on "Where Am I?" lands me on a list of nations which I'm sure is limited but is at least a starting point for discussion. They specifically mention "There are 634 First Nations in Canada. Learn more about those closest to your location", which might not be directly reflected on the landing page but is acknowledged on the website itself. Their relationship to acknowledgement being part of a process of reconciliation is not a personal attack on anyone, and it saddens me to think that some people would take it as such. Their FAQ also brings forth the kinds of questions that one might come up with when being made aware of First Nations and treaties and such.[1] For reference, I am European and I moved to Canada. Perhaps the emotional distance allows for curiosity and a wish to understand as main drivers, rather than feeling attacked or threatened in any way. And I'm French, so technically this is history that I should know at least partially! (but was never taught in school, as the kind of history classes I experienced were very focused on our own belly buttons - Pre-history -> Egyptians -> Greeks -> Romans -> Medieval Europe -> Monarchies (so much time..) -> Industrial Revolution in Europe -> World Wars -> Cold war). Canada is making efforts towards a better understanding and acceptance of its past without shying away from saying things that temporarily would appear "ego-damaging". In my country, a bit over a decade ago the president was going to a summit of African countries to tell them how irrelevant they are[2]. The humility shown in this website (and to a larger degree in Canada, as evidenced by Trudeau's recent acknowledgement of systemic racism) is as politically challenging as it is morally right in the long run. The past can't be undone, but the present can acknowledge and work to build understanding and respect for the paths taken. [0] https://www.whose.land/en/about https://www.whose.land/en/about [1] https://www.whose.land/en/faq https://www.whose.land/en/faq [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy_Dakar_address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy_Dakar_address
temp-dude-87844 6y ago
This is an informative project that originates from Canada that shows just how many different peoples, nations, and polities used to lie hundreds of years ago on pockets of land that's now largely under the sovereignty of post-colonial megastates. Their coverage is focused on North America, but there's also entries in South America, Australia, and New Zealand. This isn't a critique of this project, but a question about the spirit of acknowledgement and reconciliation embodied by this and other projects: Africa bore a crushing toll under colonialism. Its people were kidnapped and sold to slavery, which persisted for hundreds of years. In many cases, they weren't even afforded the dilemma of making unequal treaties. Those who remained in Africa lived under colonial powers until after WWII, then in artificial states inheriting the old colonial borders. Many of these places descended into civil war shortly after their independence, and even today their human development lags behind the rest of the world. Ought we not reconcile that? Of course, it's not a competition. Injustice done to one ought to stand on its own, without comparison to injustice done to others. But the promise of multinational, classically liberal states like Canada, the United States, Colombia, Australia, is that their people are empowered with the right to thrive regardless of how they found themselves in the country, by blood of conquerors, blood of indigenous peoples, blood of slaves, or as recent immigrants. Belief in this lofty ideal, which doesn't always work in practice when one starts much further behind, is also what sets the stage for the self-reflection, compassion, and the desire for reconciliation. Other parts of the world aren't so keen on this movement. In Europe, similar desires to recognize past inhabitants of a land are painted as irrendentism, hurt by the association with today's xenophobic nationalists and past conquerors who turned to total war and genocide. In Asia, powerful states regularly engage in the subjugation of ethnic groups to this day, but the powers are too significant to world trade and world peace to condemn and alienate. Preservation of life and limb are surprisingly powerful motivators in suppressing this kind of examination elsewhere. Stability, a reduced level of fear, and a latent sense of guilt among the dominant group in power appear to be the necessary preconditions for this kind of movement to emerge and thrive. This isn't a cynical point, but we ought to collectively acknowledge that.
- protomyth 6y ago
  It looks like Canada only. If they have anything from the US it must be somewhere other than the Northern Great Plains.
waffle_ss 6y ago
Human history is a story of conquest, and Native Americans fought - fought, not rolled over on their bellies - and were conquered by white settlers. It might not have been a very fair fight given the disparity in technology but it was a fight nonetheless. The natives were certainly fighting each other before whites arrived, too - the warrior role is an important part of many tribes' culture. Should the Comanche give reparations and land back to the Apache because they drove them out and slaughtered them almost to complete genocide? Should the Ojibwe (who I share blood with) apologize for teaching white settlers the name "Sioux", meaning "little snakes", for the Lakota (their enemy)? The USA should honor its treaties and acknowledge any wrongdoings, but these land acknowledgements that state the land is "occupied" by a foreign power are absurd and I'll continue to strongly object to them.
- ifokiedoke 6y ago
  While I understand this sentiment - especially since as you say, most (if not all) of today's accepted states and borders are the result of bloody, unfair conquest - I do personally struggle with a system of objection/dismissal based on the "well, it's a dog-eats-world" mindset. Interestingly, I've also found that many people (I'm being a bit hand-wavy here, I know) who are completely fine with dismissing indigenous land acknowledgements have plenty to say about Tibet re: China, or Crimea re: Russia, etc. Perhaps it's all realpolitik posturing, but if it has been I certainly haven't been able to tell. Seems to me that so long as the peoples who "lost" in history are still around and able to generate sympathy, empathy, and understanding, it lands upon us to seriously think about whether or not we should continue the status quo and carry history into the present.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - paloaltokid 6y ago
    > I do personally struggle with a system of objection/dismissal based on the "well, it's a dog-eats-world" mindset. I used to be perplexed by these responses on HN as well but they make a certain kind of sense. If you have really doubled down on science and evolution and take them to their logical extreme, Darwinism really does just reduce to "if I can eat you, I win." It occurs to me that many posters on HN are very okay with this mindset because they are chasing big dreams in life. And if a few people get hurt while they're on their way to riches, so be it. You see this sentiment all the time in various comment threads.
29athrowaway 6y ago
When the Spanish arrived to Mexico, they asked one native what was the name of that area. The person replied: "Ma'anaatik ka t'ann" (I don't understand you"), and the Spanish hispanized that phrase to Yucatan. As a result, a large extent of territory is now known as Yucatan Peninsula. And many names given to territories in the Americas have similar stories.
- sgrove 6y ago
  It seems that this is one of three proposed origins of the name [0] - and only one of two possible meanings of the "miscommunication" hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucatán#Origin_of_"Yucatán" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucatán#Origin_of_"Yucatán"
Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
Maps like these give the false impression that nearly every square mile of land - even inhospitable desert regions, were once occupied by some native polity. Reality check: Most indigenous peoples lived in Mesoamerica, with < 10 million in what is now USA/Canada and that's being generous. There are regions of North America today that have no residents. By what grounds are these native lands - because some nomads once wandered through there?
- 300bps 6y ago
  This is why Adverse Possession has been a principle of law for thousands of years. Without such a concept, there can be no private ownership of land. Because someone can always come out of the woodwork with an old document that says the land your family has owned for tens or hundreds of years is actually their land. http://dirt.umkc.edu/archives/dirt2003/mar2003/adverse%20possession%20artilce1.doc http://dirt.umkc.edu/archives/dirt2003/mar2003/adverse%20pos...
  - cataphract 6y ago
    Well, the UK has basically killed adverse possession in the Land Registration Act 2002, so we'll see how that turns out for them.
    - cameronh90 6y ago
      Arguably that reason makes less sense now, given that record keeping and accessibility is much better. It should now be relatively trivial to ensure you own any given land in the land registry. The bigger argument for it now is making land use more efficient.
- rexpop 6y ago
  For one thing, it's incredibly chauvinistic to dismiss pre-colombian society as "some nomads," and their mobility patterns as having "wandered". Nomadic life-ways aren't the thoughtless ramblings of a child at play, or a sub-sentient beast in simple reactionary pursuit of greener pastures. They summer here, winter there, raise children in these parts, and visit those for sport, trade, or agriculture. Their relationship with the land is purposeful, and maintained by cultural artifacts we'd recognize as Almanacs. One isn't "wandering" just because they haven't poured concrete. For another thing, the pre-colombian americas weren't the Gardens of Eden, magically and effortlessly producing sustenance, and materials for us to enjoy. They were cultivated, sculpted, and gamed into those forms which facilitated our survival. There's evidence enough of that in the ways that restrictive intra- and under-growth have returned to the forests indigenous populations kept pruned for their traversal. Lastly, biomes are big systems, and interconnected. I may have only a small garden, but it's fed from massive watersheds. If I am to survive, the mountains which constitute that watershed must be recognized as "mine" in some regard. So it goes with all the lands which feed into, and out of, those through which "some nomads once wandered." I hope you can see, now, how myopically your "reality check" frames the situation. Edit: I took out a specious allusion to the BLM.
faitswulff 6y ago
A lot of comments arguing about the specifics of land ownership in this thread. I think the point of the website is that it's not our land unless you're indigenous.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  Do the Alaskan natives own their land? I ask because they represent a separate and later migration. The original Alaskan natives are no longer around to dispute the matter as they were replaced by those who now are now called indigenous. This is reflected in their languages, which are unrelated to other indigenous languages in North and South America.
  - faitswulff 6y ago
    Well, the ones who "now are called indigenous" actually do exist and are alive, contrary to popular belief and government intervention. And the point is that they do not own their land, settlers do at the moment, and that indigenous folks have a claim preceding Western style land ownership.
    - oh_sigh 6y ago
      But they just stole the land in a similar manner that Europeans stole the land from Natives. If someone steals your car, and then has that car stolen from them - it would be strange to set up a movement to have the car returned to the penultimate thief instead of the original owner.
      - faitswulff 6y ago
        Migration in prehistoric times does not equate to the well-documented genocide and theft by Europeans, and you're misapplying a principle in order to marginalize the rights of an oppressed peoples who are, as I mentioned earlier, still alive. We do not return cars to dead people.
        6y ago
mceoin 6y ago
Is this project related to https://native-land.ca/ https://native-land.ca/ ?
siculars 6y ago
I'm confused. A lot of these areas overlap. Are these areas of land ownership or something else? How do you have multiple owners of the same physical location? In which period of time?
- CameronNemo 6y ago
  Nomadic societies, shifting borders, partially shared residence. There are other possible explanations.
- labster 6y ago
  In my area, there are several bands of Chumash -- Ventureño, Obispeño, etc -- all of which are the same nation, but different bands. Both are shown on this map, the set and its subsets. But, of course, some people would have a territory, then another people would come in and claim it as their own territory because the other people weren't "using" it. This started well before 1492 -- and based on nature, probably began long before the Homo genus ever appeared on Earth.
WalterBright 6y ago
If you build a garage on your neighbor's land, and he doesn't do anything about it, in about 10 years it becomes your land.
- bluedevil2k 6y ago
  False. There’s no such thing as “squatters rights” or anything or a statute of limitations. At any point the neighbor can sue you to protect his land. Further, when either property is sold, a survey will show the discrepency.
  - codingdave 6y ago
    I'm not sure where you got the idea that this isn't true - the timeframes and exact rules differ by jurisdiction, and there are many actions an owner can take to prevent it, but there absolutely are scenarios where you can build on property that is not your own and end up owning it. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/adverse-possession-trespassers-become-owners-46934.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/adverse-possession-t...
  - klyrs 6y ago
    Depends where you live. You and GP are quite possibly speaking true of your respective locations but overlooking the rest of the world. In some jurisdictions, you are correct: the state owns all land, and purchase agreements are subject to consent of the state. No bill of sale, no rights. I know that the province of BC in Canada is one such jurisdiction. Irony here being that much of indigenous land in nominal BC is unceded and was stolen without even the pretense of a treaty. On the other hand, I previously lived in Washington state, US, where one could legally take possession of land after 7 years of use and maintenance (as long as it isn't state or federal land), and as I understand it, a hefty chunk of paperwork.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      I live in Washington, and I have been personally involved with encroachments on my property in two separate cases, and I personally know of others. The various lawyers involved all said the same thing - if you don't put a stop to encroachments, you lose the property. In one case that I knew about, the property owner moved the surveying monument 10 feet to increase the size of his lot. He built his house. 20 years later this was discovered, but oops, it was his land now. In another case, the neighbor did indeed build a garage on a friend of mine's land. My friend called the police, who told him it was a civil matter, not a police matter. So one day, he rented a bulldozer and demolished it. The neighbor called the police, but my friend showed the police the garage was on my friend's land, and that was the end of that. He figured the dozer was cheaper than a lawyer :-) and he was legally in the clear as long as he did it before adverse possession was claimed. You might be surprised how often people lie and cheat about where the property lines are. It's worthwhile to have an official survey done for property you're considering buying - it can save you a lot of grief later.
joshuaheard 6y ago
I don't see a time scale on the map. If you go back 18,000 years or so, there were no humans in North America. After that, there was a series of migrations from Asia. Certainly, over time, distinct tribes formed, reformed, and disappeared, over varying areas, until we get the current map you see. It would be nice to see a time scale reflect this morphology.
- d_t_w 6y ago
  I'm not sure how indigenous cultures are represented in North America today but the map shows Iwi in New Zealand that are present day, not a historical artefact.
labster 6y ago
The title is wrong here, as the map includes Australia and some of South America. I'm a little sad this doesn't include anything in Africa, Asia, or Europe. What about the Zulu Kingdom, conquered by the British? How about what Rome did to all of those Etruscans? What about the Uighurs and Tibetans?
patcon 6y ago
It's not quiiiite as polished, but I like this website a bit more: https://native-land.ca/ https://native-land.ca/ Informationally, it has more layers, including treaties, languages and territories. It's stewarded by a dedicated [and now native-led] Canadian nonprofit, as opposed to a short-term funded collaboration that whose.land is. Also, it's partnering with other groups like https://nativesintech.org/ https://nativesintech.org/ (If anyone feels supportive of projects like this, and otherwise empowering indigenous communities, NativesInTech has a Slack team and is very welcoming of non-native contributors :) https://forum.nativesintech.org/t/welcome-to-natives-in-tech-forum/7 https://forum.nativesintech.org/t/welcome-to-natives-in-tech... )
- marc_abonce 6y ago
  It actually seems to be the same map in both cases. When I click on any territory in OP's map I'm redirected to the page you linked.
throwawaypoop12 6y ago
and how do we know this map is even close to accurate? they were busy killing each other long before we got here. wHiTeMaNbAd
magicmouse 6y ago
Indians entered america approx 8000 years ago. Many were nomadic hunter/gathering cultures, which have no defined territory. They followed animal herds, etc., so a map of their area is very approximate at best. Recently the oldest skeleton was found, and it was caucasian! Caused quite a stir. Remember that humans have been around for millions of years, and traveled in groups of around 200 people for most of that time. Organization came much later.
- atomi 6y ago
  > caucasian! There is no evidence Native Americans originated from the Caucasus regions. We have remains that have been dated to as far back as 12,707–12,556 years BP. Accordingly: > Paleogenomic analysis of the remains revealed Siberian ancestry and a close genetic relationship to modern Native Americans, including those of Central and South America.[1][3] These findings support the hypothesis that modern Native Americans are descended from Asian populations who crossed Beringia between 32,000 and 18,000 years ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzick-1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzick-1
dylan-m 6y ago
There's a straightforward rebuttal to about 90% of the horrible arguments (which is at least half of the comments - seriously, hacker news?!) in this thread. 1. Did [other country that was also previously somebody else's] finish their genocide? 2. Would you prefer that Canada and the United States did? I know your answer to the second one because I know humans are, eventually, (once they stop pretending that they live in a statistics textbook) usually not assholes. So to the whataboutism, I simply ask: understanding that this is not history, but the present, what the fuck do you think you're advocating?

123 points by guerrilla 6y ago

"Indigenous Nations" are ethnotribal-pseudostates. They are racist and problematic. Claiming that some land is "Native Land" is the same as claiming some land is "White land". This is not flamebait. The reservation system is a relic of a time when both the white European settlers AND the Natives saw themselves as separate enough to be unable to live together in a single Nation. It is time we undo these artificial racial separations. As for my claim that asserting the existence of Native Land is equivalent to asserting the existence of White Land, well, if we choose to treat people equally, why would certain prohibitions applied to one race not apply equally to others? If we decide that White land is a racist concept, which it is, how can we not apply that same reasoning to everyone else, unless we are racially targeting White people?

joshuakelly 6y ago
Please try to make high quality comments on Hacker News. Here are the public guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html There are plenty of high quality, _critical_ comments and discussion to be made on this submission and broader subject - why eschew that in favor of flamebait? edit: You've since edited your comment, but I still think it could be substantially improved if you want an interesting (and provoking!) discussion.
- Gunax 6y ago
  I don't agree that's its flamebait, and I am even skeptical of the concept of flamebait as one person's flamebait is another's honest opinion. In fact I think the comment in question is a strait forward and honest opinion that is just missing the usual euphemisms and massaging that usually accompany such controversial topics. And I also think that questioning whether tribal pseudo sub-states should exist is completely relevant to a discussion about tribal reservations.
  - joshuakelly 6y ago
    The original comment has changed significantly. It was much more terse in its initial posting. I think another important factor to keep in mind here is age of account.
    - Gunax 6y ago
      I also read it in it's initial form, and my reply was based on that. I hate to detail so much from the article content. I strongly disagree with the flagging of that comment. Accusing a nation of being a racist ethno-state is completely on topic, even if controversial. And we regularly see the same accusations levied at America or Israel (I would not want those removed either). I fear a double standard is developing.
      - S33V 6y ago
        Is there any way to refute a flagging? I think the original comment spawned some great conversation which relies on it being visible.
        jessaustin 6y ago
        If you had more karma, you could "vouch" for the comment. If enough people were to do so, the [flagged] status would disappear. Failing that, you could email the mods to draw their attention to unfairly flagged comments. They do have good taste, however, so they're likely to leave the comment in question [0] flagged. Unlike IRL, the system at HN is rigged against racist dog whistles. If one is ever tempted to write the sentence "This is not flamebait.", one should think more deeply. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23794262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23794262
dlivingston 6y ago
Can you explain further? I don’t see how you reach your conclusion from your premise. Or, how you reach your premise at all.
- 627467 6y ago
  I do want to hear more from more versed people since I hear arguments in favour of indigenous rights that are variations of pro-(insert your ethnogroup) rights. Why are some pro-ethno rights alright and others not? Is it that because some ethnogroups are considered in disadvantage and hence deserving special rights? I understand the concept Affirmative Action, is this what we are talking about?
  - tspike 6y ago
    "Some ethnogroups are considered in disadvantage" is one way to put it, but it's minimizing it. We're talking about groups that were specifically targeted for their ethnicity: murdered, raped, disenfranchised, and exiled (with no hyperbole). You can't decimate a group based on ethnicity and then ask why they deserve special treatment for their ethnicity. Further, they're not even getting special treatment- they are having the sovereignty and jurisdiction our _own system_ assigned them validated and reaffirmed after having it unlawfully stolen from them. You can argue that a tribal government should adopt open, non-ethnocentric policies, but that is their decision to make, not ours.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    First of all, there's a complication here in that some Indian reservations were created by the Indian nations themselves (particularly in the Pacific Northwest), while others were created as part of the genocide of Indians carried out by Europeans in the Americas. So let's focus first on the second category. Imagine that some people from elsewhere showed up, rounded up you and all your relatives and everybody else living within a 400 mile radius, killed 80% of them, then marched the rest to a patch of land you'd never seen before and said "you'll be living here now, it's yours in perpetuity". Then a hundred or more years go by, and the descendants of those people say to your descendants "Well, actually, that land we said was yours isn't really yours, and so the problems with resources, jobs, social order, purpose and meaning you folks have had for a while are going to get worse". And then someone shows up and says "why should these particular ethnic groups get treated differently from any other?" If you then turn your attention to the self-created reservations, the story is a bit different. Now imagine that some newcomers show up in your part of the world. They seem ready to fight, and you've heard stories from people who have travelled east over the mountains that they are brutal nasty SOBs. The newcomers say that they are ready to strike a deal, so you decide that this makes more sense. You tell them that they are welcome to come and live in this area, but that you want a treaty that recognizes that you will reserve areas for your own people, along with certain distributed rights like fishing. The newcomers sign the deal, apparently quite happy with it. 200 years later, your descendants realize that the treaty rights are no longer recognized, and that the newcomers have changed everything so much with their logging, mining and dams that even the original terms of the treaty don't much sense any more. And then someone shows up and wonders why your people should treated any differently from anyone else.
baddox 6y ago
> If we decide that White land is a racist concept, which it is, how can we not apply that same reasoning to everyone else I think there's a pretty obvious difference between referring to land in historical North America as "Native land" and calling it "White land." And the specific label doesn't matter much, you could say "European land" or "colonized land" and the point remains unchanged. Your comment seems like the standard appeal to "colorblindness," as if one group of people can invade or otherwise oppress another group, actively set up a vastly unequal distribution of resources and freedoms, and then claim that the only way forward is to deliberately ignore the history and even the existence of the different groups. But of course, to ignore those now is to explicitly support the status quo, and the status quo is still dominated by the historical unequal distribution of resources and freedoms between the groups.
- hhernandez 6y ago
  What happened in the past, good or bad, is unchangeable. The only way forward is a colorblind approach as building specific policies around race simply encourage further racial division and entrenchment. Preventing racial discrimination (a good thing) should not lead into encouraging racial division, but unfortunately our well meaning desire to be equitable often causes that to happen.
  - baddox 6y ago
    > What happened in the past, good or bad, is unchangeable. The only way forward is a colorblind approach as building specific policies around race simply encourage further racial division and entrenchment. Of course that's definitely not the only way forward. You can fix unequal distributions of resources by, well, redistributing the resources, which requires acknowledging the existence of different groups and the history of how those groups have distributed resources among themselves. And note that acknowledging the existence of a social construct that distinguishes people into different groups does not imply condoning that social construct. It's not that radical. If a thief steals my car, the way forward is to recognize who is the thief and who is the victim, and to redistribute the resources accordingly. That does not "simply encourage further division and entrenchment between thieves and victims of theft," or if it does, I think that's okay. We don't say "hey, I'm blind to the differences between thieves and victims, we're all just human beings."
jcranmer 6y ago
Funnily enough, we tried disestablishing the reservation systems. It was the Native Americans who objected to that.

Pfhreak 6y ago

Neat map! Some usability issues -- if one border is entirely within another border, e.g. near Seattle, I couldn't figure out how to click it. Also, I wish the map was larger without fullscreening. Edit: The title also seems to be not quite right, as the map covers more than North America.

sxv 6y ago
Agreed, I was thinking that one possible solution to the first issue could be to have a layer immediately sent to the back upon being clicked.

simonsarris 6y ago

Somehow I doubt the Russians, English, Spanish, French etc that arrived in the Americas landed on a Westphalian continent. I think maps like this give the wrong impression. Wabanaki (among others) invited French colonists to settle Quebec in part to check (and perhaps attack) the Mohawk, among other conflicts. ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars I think it is almost universally agreed that the French treated the natives better and more collaboratively than the English, who took a different tone. It's somewhat a shame that the English won that balance of power so early. I wonder how it would be different today if Canada was still New France.

cpursley 6y ago
Please stop with the facts and history written by white men, it has no place in identity politics.
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't post any more unsubstantive comments and flamebait to HN. It helps nothing.
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Unfortunately this is a time for history to be oversimplified, and in some cases rewritten.
baddox 6y ago
This map contains a lot of overlapping and very rounded regions that I think convey that it's rough areas of settlement rather than some internationally-recognized partition of the land.
- jml7c5 6y ago
  I wonder if something more like a smooth probability map would make more sense, rather than overlapping borders. The hard lines can give an unreasonable sense of certainty, even if the intent is to indicate uncertainty.

seebetter 6y ago

Think about how ‘savage’ and masculine one must be to walk from Asia to North America thousands of years ago. And I’m using savage in the modern, positive connotation. Human society was beyond brutal then. Humans are dangerous and vile and ridiculous and tribal. There’s nothing unique about that in any race or culture (maybe a few exceptions). We can’t know how the past being different would affect the future. Had “Native America” become a nation, it could had created substantially worse or maybe better systems. We did create an incredibly fair system with modern technology and medicine that’s saved hundreds of millions of lives. We can’t disregard all the progress and freedom our systems have brought to the individual. America is the best country in the world because it defends natural rights. We have a long way to go but we can only get to a better world with John Locke and classical liberalism.

jessaustin 6y ago
Who suggests that any individual person walked "from Asia to North America"? Beringia itself was inhabited for millennia, even after the glaciers receded enough to allow walking south. Groups of humans could have moved a mile per year and covered the distance. (Although, it seems more likely that they moved back and forth much farther in a sort of Brownian fashion.) Also, many theorists suggest that much of the "fastest" migration was via watercraft along the west coast of the Americas. America is something quite different from "the best country in the world". It would be more accurate (although still too simplistic) to say that we're the most successful "bad guys". Sure, there are other people who fight unnecessary wars of aggression for the commercial interests of privileged ruling-class assholes. It's just that we've fought so many, which have resulted in the violent deaths of so many millions. Eventually quantity has a quality of its own. It is interesting that one's response to this basically anthropological map would be "USA #1!?!"
minerjoe 6y ago
> "an incredibly fair system" I almost fell out of my chair laughing.
- seebetter 6y ago
  Name another country that's built better systems. Of course, LIFE isn't fair. But be careful tearing down classical liberalism hoping that some centralized authority will dictate the perfect expression of how a human being should exist.

jessaustin 6y ago

The territory of the Hesquiaht is interesting. They seem to have been a largely maritime tribe...

Gunax 6y ago

So the case at hand is about the prosecution of a tribal member by the state court. While I think the SC made the correct legal decision, I am worried about the implications of this. Do we really want to have separate legal systems based on ethnicity or tribal membership? What if the tribe legalizes marijuana but the state doesn't? What if the punishments in one are more severe than another? Typically the jurisdiction of crime is based on territory, not ethnicity. Im not a lawyer and I'm not American, so I could of course be completely misunderstanding what the implications are.

627467 6y ago
> Do we really want to have separate legal systems based on ethnicity or tribal membership? And how does one certify identity/ethnicity and why won't individuals claim as many (or as little) of them?
- Gunax 6y ago
  Well it's certified based on tribal membership, which is an actual, de jure status. When I wrote ethnicity I am just acknowledging that it's so closely tied to tribal membership that they are effectively the same. I imagine the tribes can grant status to anyone they like as a sovereign nation, just like America can grant citizenship to whomever it decides.
- cowboysauce 6y ago
  In the exact same way that every country in the world operates. The tribal government sets the criteria that must be met to be a member of the tribe.
  - 627467 6y ago
    I see, so, just like how around the world peers recognize the ability of a self-proclaimed nation of define their own nationality so in this case the US is the peer that recognizes tribal government sovereign authority to define who is has membership in it (among other things). Does tribal governments not have legal jurisdictions? Judicial institutions?

29athrowaway 6y ago

I hope they add more nations at some point. I know of some missing populations in this map.

chrisco255 6y ago

The idea of the stable borders is so new. The Ottoman Empire still controlled much of the middle east before World War I. The British Empire was also still quite expansive at the beginning of that war (and into WW2). The fact that so much of the world speaks Latin-derived languages (French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Italian...nearly 1 billion people in total) is a relic of the Roman empire's own expansive conquering of territory. Just over 150 years ago, Germany wasn't even a single nation state, but rather a collection of loose territories. Among the native americans themselves, there were constant warring, slavery, even human sacrifice and in some cases cannibalism. And this is, for example, how the Iroquois treated prisoners of war: "The captive would be executed after a day-long torture session of burning and removing body parts, which the prisoner was expected to bear with stoicism and nobility (an expectation not usually met) before being scalped alive. Hot sand was applied to the exposed skull and they were finally killed by cutting out their hearts. Afterward, the victim's body was cut and eaten by the community. The practice of ritual torture and execution, together with cannibalism, ended some time in the early 18th century." For some reason, some people believe that whatever "borders" existed several hundred years ago should be brought forward to modern times. These folks consistently craft a narrative that paints the U.S. in a bad light while ignoring the very real crimes against humanity that occurred on practically every square foot of ground across the globe, going back thousands of years. From a certain perspective, all of human history can be summed up as an endless series of blood feuds.

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
Seems like there is quite a bit of fragility and anxiety with this thread, mostly culminating into getting the US out of the spotlight, and talking about humanity through all periods.
- wpm 6y ago
  Fragility is accusing anyone who disagrees with you or presents a slightly impure viewpoint of fragility.
flatline 6y ago
Indian land was taken over the course of hundreds of years of false promises and violated treaties. European settlers were predominately the ones drawing the maps, and consistently taking what was not only not theirs to begin with, but what they had agreed belonged to the native tribes and then took anyway. We're not talking about thousands of years of human history, we're talking about very real injustices that are still being perpetuated by one current-day party (largely the states) against another (various tribes). Would you prefer the tribes resort to rebellion and bloodshed to reclaim what is theirs by treaty? Would you prefer that contracts and treaties are simply ignored when inconvenient?

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

This map should really have some dates on it. It might represent the state of things within, say, a 100 year period (or so) of European arrival, but it doesn't convey the history of humans in North America. I read the FAQ and could not find any information on what time period is represented here. If someone showed you a map of Europe or China marked out like this, it would be natural to ask "when is this?" None of that does anything to ameliorate the genocide that was perpetrated against the people living in the Americans when europeans travelled and then settled here. But it's also important not to portray the prior 10k years or more of human settlement in the Americas as static and unchanging.

rexpop 6y ago
I appreciate this point. In a similar vein, DNA services like 23andMe should also come with dates on them. In fact, frankly, any mention of ethnicity should come with a date. No cultural group–bound by genes of memes–is truly the same river twice.
mobilefriendly 6y ago
Yes, for example the Seminoles weren't native to Florida they were bands of Creeks pushed there by the Upper Creeks and Europeans in the 1700s, and were also invited by the Spanish. They weren't even named as a distinct group until the 1770s. There were many other Florida tribes.
oh_sigh 6y ago
As an example, Southern Athabascan speakers(e.g. Apache, Navajo) only migrated from what is approximately modern day Canada to the American Southwest within the time frame that Europeans were already on the continent(~1500 AD).
marc_abonce 6y ago
Yup. At a quick glance I think there are some inconsistencies with the dating. For example, the map portrays Guanajuato as inhabited by Guamares which hasn't really been the case for centuries, or at least there is no recognized group that self identifies as such anymore. Conversely, the Huron-Wendat are portrayed to live in the St. Lawrence, as is the case now, rather than around Lake Huron as they did in the 1600's. So both cases can't be simultaneously correct. I think the map is meant to portray modern locations, but I'm not entirely sure.

m0zg 6y ago

Wait until the indigenous folks start going back further in time and revising their own conquests. That should be fun to watch. Oh, and they had slavery too, in case where their enemies weren't exterminated outright or even eaten sometimes. Quote from Wikipedia: "Native American groups often enslaved war captives, whom they primarily used for small-scale labor. Others however would stake themselves in gambling situations when they had nothing else, which would put them into servitude for a short time, or in some cases for life; captives were also sometimes tortured as part of religious rites, and these sometimes involved ritual cannibalism." And when Europeans arrived, natives held African slaves, too, as well as sold their own _native_ war captives to Europeans, much like Africans did in Africa. I wonder what they think of the idea of "reparations". But I digress. So when someone says that Mount Rushmore belongs to the Lakota tribe, if we aren't willing to let the sleeping dogs lie, other tribes might want Lakota to revise that statement. Unwind it far enough, and who knows what tribe settled there first (assuming it even exists nowadays). Cursory search suggests that Black Hills (now Mount Rushmore) was first settled by Arikara, and then, quote: "The Arikara in the Black Hills was followed by the Crow, Pawnee, Kiowa, Cheyenne, Lakota Sioux, and then to the United States. The Lakota Sioux arrived in the region after getting kicked out of Minnesota in the late 1770s by other tribes. The Sioux took over the region after they drove out the Cheyenne Indian nation. The Sioux forced the Cheyenne to move West." So yeah, if we're going to unwind, why stop at when the United States took the land. Let's unwind all the way. Or maybe, just maybe, the SCOTUS decision was idiotic.

dang 6y ago
Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? We've asked you so many times that I'm not sure why we haven't banned you yet. No doubt that's because you've also posted good things. Unfortunately, though, your account really stands out as damaging this place, and if you don't fix this, we're going to have to. This thread is a great example because while there are commenters on both sides of the issue, your post is the one that stands out as really dragging the discussion down to nastiness. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
minerjoe 6y ago
Maybe stop learning about Native American history from Wikipedia and a "cursory search". You can always find something on the web to "support" your argument. The harder path is to actually do the research to understand the nuances and most importantly, in this case, to learn how much of history is highly innacurate and written by the conquerors.

cmehdy 6y ago

This is a cool website, and if people go past the landing page they'll find a trove of information and good descriptions of the initiative, as well as rebuttal of the criticisms I've read here so far. For example, the website is a collaborative effort between multiple entities, and re: map details, they state clearly that "These maps are fluid and ever changing and should be used as an education tool to create dialogue around reconciliation."[0] They also don't claim to show every single thing on the landing page. For example, living in Quebec, clicking on "Where Am I?" lands me on a list of nations which I'm sure is limited but is at least a starting point for discussion. They specifically mention "There are 634 First Nations in Canada. Learn more about those closest to your location", which might not be directly reflected on the landing page but is acknowledged on the website itself. Their relationship to acknowledgement being part of a process of reconciliation is not a personal attack on anyone, and it saddens me to think that some people would take it as such. Their FAQ also brings forth the kinds of questions that one might come up with when being made aware of First Nations and treaties and such.[1] For reference, I am European and I moved to Canada. Perhaps the emotional distance allows for curiosity and a wish to understand as main drivers, rather than feeling attacked or threatened in any way. And I'm French, so technically this is history that I should know at least partially! (but was never taught in school, as the kind of history classes I experienced were very focused on our own belly buttons - Pre-history -> Egyptians -> Greeks -> Romans -> Medieval Europe -> Monarchies (so much time..) -> Industrial Revolution in Europe -> World Wars -> Cold war). Canada is making efforts towards a better understanding and acceptance of its past without shying away from saying things that temporarily would appear "ego-damaging". In my country, a bit over a decade ago the president was going to a summit of African countries to tell them how irrelevant they are[2]. The humility shown in this website (and to a larger degree in Canada, as evidenced by Trudeau's recent acknowledgement of systemic racism) is as politically challenging as it is morally right in the long run. The past can't be undone, but the present can acknowledge and work to build understanding and respect for the paths taken. [0] https://www.whose.land/en/about https://www.whose.land/en/about [1] https://www.whose.land/en/faq https://www.whose.land/en/faq [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy_Dakar_address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy_Dakar_address

temp-dude-87844 6y ago

This is an informative project that originates from Canada that shows just how many different peoples, nations, and polities used to lie hundreds of years ago on pockets of land that's now largely under the sovereignty of post-colonial megastates. Their coverage is focused on North America, but there's also entries in South America, Australia, and New Zealand. This isn't a critique of this project, but a question about the spirit of acknowledgement and reconciliation embodied by this and other projects: Africa bore a crushing toll under colonialism. Its people were kidnapped and sold to slavery, which persisted for hundreds of years. In many cases, they weren't even afforded the dilemma of making unequal treaties. Those who remained in Africa lived under colonial powers until after WWII, then in artificial states inheriting the old colonial borders. Many of these places descended into civil war shortly after their independence, and even today their human development lags behind the rest of the world. Ought we not reconcile that? Of course, it's not a competition. Injustice done to one ought to stand on its own, without comparison to injustice done to others. But the promise of multinational, classically liberal states like Canada, the United States, Colombia, Australia, is that their people are empowered with the right to thrive regardless of how they found themselves in the country, by blood of conquerors, blood of indigenous peoples, blood of slaves, or as recent immigrants. Belief in this lofty ideal, which doesn't always work in practice when one starts much further behind, is also what sets the stage for the self-reflection, compassion, and the desire for reconciliation. Other parts of the world aren't so keen on this movement. In Europe, similar desires to recognize past inhabitants of a land are painted as irrendentism, hurt by the association with today's xenophobic nationalists and past conquerors who turned to total war and genocide. In Asia, powerful states regularly engage in the subjugation of ethnic groups to this day, but the powers are too significant to world trade and world peace to condemn and alienate. Preservation of life and limb are surprisingly powerful motivators in suppressing this kind of examination elsewhere. Stability, a reduced level of fear, and a latent sense of guilt among the dominant group in power appear to be the necessary preconditions for this kind of movement to emerge and thrive. This isn't a cynical point, but we ought to collectively acknowledge that.

protomyth 6y ago
It looks like Canada only. If they have anything from the US it must be somewhere other than the Northern Great Plains.

waffle_ss 6y ago

Human history is a story of conquest, and Native Americans fought - fought, not rolled over on their bellies - and were conquered by white settlers. It might not have been a very fair fight given the disparity in technology but it was a fight nonetheless. The natives were certainly fighting each other before whites arrived, too - the warrior role is an important part of many tribes' culture. Should the Comanche give reparations and land back to the Apache because they drove them out and slaughtered them almost to complete genocide? Should the Ojibwe (who I share blood with) apologize for teaching white settlers the name "Sioux", meaning "little snakes", for the Lakota (their enemy)? The USA should honor its treaties and acknowledge any wrongdoings, but these land acknowledgements that state the land is "occupied" by a foreign power are absurd and I'll continue to strongly object to them.

ifokiedoke 6y ago
While I understand this sentiment - especially since as you say, most (if not all) of today's accepted states and borders are the result of bloody, unfair conquest - I do personally struggle with a system of objection/dismissal based on the "well, it's a dog-eats-world" mindset. Interestingly, I've also found that many people (I'm being a bit hand-wavy here, I know) who are completely fine with dismissing indigenous land acknowledgements have plenty to say about Tibet re: China, or Crimea re: Russia, etc. Perhaps it's all realpolitik posturing, but if it has been I certainly haven't been able to tell. Seems to me that so long as the peoples who "lost" in history are still around and able to generate sympathy, empathy, and understanding, it lands upon us to seriously think about whether or not we should continue the status quo and carry history into the present.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- paloaltokid 6y ago
  > I do personally struggle with a system of objection/dismissal based on the "well, it's a dog-eats-world" mindset. I used to be perplexed by these responses on HN as well but they make a certain kind of sense. If you have really doubled down on science and evolution and take them to their logical extreme, Darwinism really does just reduce to "if I can eat you, I win." It occurs to me that many posters on HN are very okay with this mindset because they are chasing big dreams in life. And if a few people get hurt while they're on their way to riches, so be it. You see this sentiment all the time in various comment threads.

29athrowaway 6y ago

When the Spanish arrived to Mexico, they asked one native what was the name of that area. The person replied: "Ma'anaatik ka t'ann" (I don't understand you"), and the Spanish hispanized that phrase to Yucatan. As a result, a large extent of territory is now known as Yucatan Peninsula. And many names given to territories in the Americas have similar stories.

sgrove 6y ago
It seems that this is one of three proposed origins of the name [0] - and only one of two possible meanings of the "miscommunication" hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucatán#Origin_of_"Yucatán" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucatán#Origin_of_"Yucatán"

Acrobatic_Road 6y ago

Maps like these give the false impression that nearly every square mile of land - even inhospitable desert regions, were once occupied by some native polity. Reality check: Most indigenous peoples lived in Mesoamerica, with < 10 million in what is now USA/Canada and that's being generous. There are regions of North America today that have no residents. By what grounds are these native lands - because some nomads once wandered through there?

300bps 6y ago
This is why Adverse Possession has been a principle of law for thousands of years. Without such a concept, there can be no private ownership of land. Because someone can always come out of the woodwork with an old document that says the land your family has owned for tens or hundreds of years is actually their land. http://dirt.umkc.edu/archives/dirt2003/mar2003/adverse%20possession%20artilce1.doc http://dirt.umkc.edu/archives/dirt2003/mar2003/adverse%20pos...
- cataphract 6y ago
  Well, the UK has basically killed adverse possession in the Land Registration Act 2002, so we'll see how that turns out for them.
  - cameronh90 6y ago
    Arguably that reason makes less sense now, given that record keeping and accessibility is much better. It should now be relatively trivial to ensure you own any given land in the land registry. The bigger argument for it now is making land use more efficient.
rexpop 6y ago
For one thing, it's incredibly chauvinistic to dismiss pre-colombian society as "some nomads," and their mobility patterns as having "wandered". Nomadic life-ways aren't the thoughtless ramblings of a child at play, or a sub-sentient beast in simple reactionary pursuit of greener pastures. They summer here, winter there, raise children in these parts, and visit those for sport, trade, or agriculture. Their relationship with the land is purposeful, and maintained by cultural artifacts we'd recognize as Almanacs. One isn't "wandering" just because they haven't poured concrete. For another thing, the pre-colombian americas weren't the Gardens of Eden, magically and effortlessly producing sustenance, and materials for us to enjoy. They were cultivated, sculpted, and gamed into those forms which facilitated our survival. There's evidence enough of that in the ways that restrictive intra- and under-growth have returned to the forests indigenous populations kept pruned for their traversal. Lastly, biomes are big systems, and interconnected. I may have only a small garden, but it's fed from massive watersheds. If I am to survive, the mountains which constitute that watershed must be recognized as "mine" in some regard. So it goes with all the lands which feed into, and out of, those through which "some nomads once wandered." I hope you can see, now, how myopically your "reality check" frames the situation. Edit: I took out a specious allusion to the BLM.

faitswulff 6y ago

A lot of comments arguing about the specifics of land ownership in this thread. I think the point of the website is that it's not our land unless you're indigenous.

Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
Do the Alaskan natives own their land? I ask because they represent a separate and later migration. The original Alaskan natives are no longer around to dispute the matter as they were replaced by those who now are now called indigenous. This is reflected in their languages, which are unrelated to other indigenous languages in North and South America.
- faitswulff 6y ago
  Well, the ones who "now are called indigenous" actually do exist and are alive, contrary to popular belief and government intervention. And the point is that they do not own their land, settlers do at the moment, and that indigenous folks have a claim preceding Western style land ownership.
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    But they just stole the land in a similar manner that Europeans stole the land from Natives. If someone steals your car, and then has that car stolen from them - it would be strange to set up a movement to have the car returned to the penultimate thief instead of the original owner.
    - faitswulff 6y ago
      Migration in prehistoric times does not equate to the well-documented genocide and theft by Europeans, and you're misapplying a principle in order to marginalize the rights of an oppressed peoples who are, as I mentioned earlier, still alive. We do not return cars to dead people.
      - 6y ago

mceoin 6y ago

Is this project related to https://native-land.ca/ https://native-land.ca/ ?

siculars 6y ago

I'm confused. A lot of these areas overlap. Are these areas of land ownership or something else? How do you have multiple owners of the same physical location? In which period of time?

CameronNemo 6y ago
Nomadic societies, shifting borders, partially shared residence. There are other possible explanations.
labster 6y ago
In my area, there are several bands of Chumash -- Ventureño, Obispeño, etc -- all of which are the same nation, but different bands. Both are shown on this map, the set and its subsets. But, of course, some people would have a territory, then another people would come in and claim it as their own territory because the other people weren't "using" it. This started well before 1492 -- and based on nature, probably began long before the Homo genus ever appeared on Earth.

WalterBright 6y ago

If you build a garage on your neighbor's land, and he doesn't do anything about it, in about 10 years it becomes your land.

bluedevil2k 6y ago
False. There’s no such thing as “squatters rights” or anything or a statute of limitations. At any point the neighbor can sue you to protect his land. Further, when either property is sold, a survey will show the discrepency.
- codingdave 6y ago
  I'm not sure where you got the idea that this isn't true - the timeframes and exact rules differ by jurisdiction, and there are many actions an owner can take to prevent it, but there absolutely are scenarios where you can build on property that is not your own and end up owning it. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/adverse-possession-trespassers-become-owners-46934.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/adverse-possession-t...
- klyrs 6y ago
  Depends where you live. You and GP are quite possibly speaking true of your respective locations but overlooking the rest of the world. In some jurisdictions, you are correct: the state owns all land, and purchase agreements are subject to consent of the state. No bill of sale, no rights. I know that the province of BC in Canada is one such jurisdiction. Irony here being that much of indigenous land in nominal BC is unceded and was stolen without even the pretense of a treaty. On the other hand, I previously lived in Washington state, US, where one could legally take possession of land after 7 years of use and maintenance (as long as it isn't state or federal land), and as I understand it, a hefty chunk of paperwork.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    I live in Washington, and I have been personally involved with encroachments on my property in two separate cases, and I personally know of others. The various lawyers involved all said the same thing - if you don't put a stop to encroachments, you lose the property. In one case that I knew about, the property owner moved the surveying monument 10 feet to increase the size of his lot. He built his house. 20 years later this was discovered, but oops, it was his land now. In another case, the neighbor did indeed build a garage on a friend of mine's land. My friend called the police, who told him it was a civil matter, not a police matter. So one day, he rented a bulldozer and demolished it. The neighbor called the police, but my friend showed the police the garage was on my friend's land, and that was the end of that. He figured the dozer was cheaper than a lawyer :-) and he was legally in the clear as long as he did it before adverse possession was claimed. You might be surprised how often people lie and cheat about where the property lines are. It's worthwhile to have an official survey done for property you're considering buying - it can save you a lot of grief later.

joshuaheard 6y ago

I don't see a time scale on the map. If you go back 18,000 years or so, there were no humans in North America. After that, there was a series of migrations from Asia. Certainly, over time, distinct tribes formed, reformed, and disappeared, over varying areas, until we get the current map you see. It would be nice to see a time scale reflect this morphology.

d_t_w 6y ago
I'm not sure how indigenous cultures are represented in North America today but the map shows Iwi in New Zealand that are present day, not a historical artefact.

labster 6y ago

The title is wrong here, as the map includes Australia and some of South America. I'm a little sad this doesn't include anything in Africa, Asia, or Europe. What about the Zulu Kingdom, conquered by the British? How about what Rome did to all of those Etruscans? What about the Uighurs and Tibetans?

patcon 6y ago

It's not quiiiite as polished, but I like this website a bit more: https://native-land.ca/ https://native-land.ca/ Informationally, it has more layers, including treaties, languages and territories. It's stewarded by a dedicated [and now native-led] Canadian nonprofit, as opposed to a short-term funded collaboration that whose.land is. Also, it's partnering with other groups like https://nativesintech.org/ https://nativesintech.org/ (If anyone feels supportive of projects like this, and otherwise empowering indigenous communities, NativesInTech has a Slack team and is very welcoming of non-native contributors :) https://forum.nativesintech.org/t/welcome-to-natives-in-tech-forum/7 https://forum.nativesintech.org/t/welcome-to-natives-in-tech... )

marc_abonce 6y ago
It actually seems to be the same map in both cases. When I click on any territory in OP's map I'm redirected to the page you linked.

throwawaypoop12 6y ago

and how do we know this map is even close to accurate? they were busy killing each other long before we got here. wHiTeMaNbAd

magicmouse 6y ago

Indians entered america approx 8000 years ago. Many were nomadic hunter/gathering cultures, which have no defined territory. They followed animal herds, etc., so a map of their area is very approximate at best. Recently the oldest skeleton was found, and it was caucasian! Caused quite a stir. Remember that humans have been around for millions of years, and traveled in groups of around 200 people for most of that time. Organization came much later.

atomi 6y ago
> caucasian! There is no evidence Native Americans originated from the Caucasus regions. We have remains that have been dated to as far back as 12,707–12,556 years BP. Accordingly: > Paleogenomic analysis of the remains revealed Siberian ancestry and a close genetic relationship to modern Native Americans, including those of Central and South America.[1][3] These findings support the hypothesis that modern Native Americans are descended from Asian populations who crossed Beringia between 32,000 and 18,000 years ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzick-1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzick-1

dylan-m 6y ago

There's a straightforward rebuttal to about 90% of the horrible arguments (which is at least half of the comments - seriously, hacker news?!) in this thread. 1. Did [other country that was also previously somebody else's] finish their genocide? 2. Would you prefer that Canada and the United States did? I know your answer to the second one because I know humans are, eventually, (once they stop pretending that they live in a statistics textbook) usually not assholes. So to the whataboutism, I simply ask: understanding that this is not history, but the present, what the fuck do you think you're advocating?