7 ms·

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. R

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.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  >Nomadic life-ways aren't the thoughtless ramblings of a child at play In 11th century eastern europe, Kipchaq nomads did the same - "wandering" as in following seasonal patterns within their lands. But it was not until the 17th century that the steppes were settled - and the settlers weren't Kipchaqs. Imagine if a modern day Ukrainian was presented with a similar indigenous map based on nomadic groups that once roamed his country - it would stretch from the Danube to the Volga! Should we convert the entire pontic-caspian steppe into an indigenous zones for Nogais and Tatars who are related to the historical kipchaqs?
  - dylan-m 6y ago
    Is it written into Ukraine's laws (and then quietly ignored) that they should respect those groups' territories and negotiate treaties to resolve issues? Fun fact: British Columbia barely has any treaties because people have ignored the issue for decades. This is incredibly slow going: http://www.bctreaty.ca/negotiation-update http://www.bctreaty.ca/negotiation-update. Edit: Read about Nogais and Tatars instead of spewing nonsense :)
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  > And by what grounds are they the Bureau of Land Management's? You may be accidentally engaging in a form of whataboutism. The GP questioned whose.land's standards when drawing the borders. But I don't think GP asserted that the U.S.'s claims were any more valid.
  - rexpop 6y ago
    > I don't think GP asserted that the U.S.'s claims were any more valid. They've left it up to our imagination what they think is valid. Edit: After reflecting on your response, I've taken out the offending line.
- kortilla 6y ago
  Nomadic lifestyles don’t scale. It’s not that “living off the land” is somehow trivial or dumb. In order to treat people with complex diseases, develop medicines, avoid famines during the cold, etc, a civilization needs to move beyond a nomadic lifestyle technologically.
Tiktaalik 6y ago
ah yeah "terra nullius", a pretty good excuse if you want to justify colonial occupation of lands that don't belong to you. It's a horseshit excuse sorry.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  By what right did the the land belong to the native Americans? Do you think all the native tribes spilled out of Alaska and then neatly fitted themselves into mutually-recognized non-overlapping territories never to be disturbed?
  - Tiktaalik 6y ago
    Indigenous people have been in NA for an extremely long time and have sorted themselves into nations over that time just like any where else in the world. If there are overlapping disagreements between Indigenous Nations about land title, as there are with all sorts of modern nations around the world, there are lots of modern mechanisms to settle that. Not sure how any of this has any relevance or should be used as a justification colonialism and for pushing people off their lands.
    - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
      It seems like you are trying to avoid the question. What gives indigenous peoples any moral high ground over later settlers? The indigenous* conquered land from each other and moved - an obvious fact which too often gets left out of the conversation. Then, the Europeans came along and possessed the lands for themselves. And you'll find the same story repeated on every corner of the earth. Continual occupation is just not a thing. * As I've mentioned in another comment, true "indigenous" Alaskans are no more, having been replaced by an unrelated group of people in a later migration to the Americas.
      - thethethethe 6y ago
        You are brushing off the systematic, mass genocide of native people and dispossession of their land by essentially saying that its happened throughout history, that it’s normal. I’m not really sure how this argument justifies anything. The colonization of America is recent. NA indigenous people are still alive and have special designated land that they were forced to move to. They weren’t even given citizenship by default until 1924–less than one hundred years ago > continual occupation is just not a thing I’m not sure where you are getting this. At what point is an occupation over? When the genocide is complete? That hasn’t even happened yet, NA indigenous people are still alive. Do you just expect they to submit, assimilate, and abandon their culture completely?
bjourne 6y ago
Maybe no one owns the land then? Owning land by purchasing a title registered in the State's land registry can hardly be a stronger claim than being a nomad wandering through.
- asguy 6y ago
  Who owns the laptop you’re currently typing on?
- atomi 6y ago
  I would add, the first people to make use of the land. And just for some additional context, nearly all Native North Americans share the same ancestral DNA.
undersuit 6y ago
Should we adjust our maps now too? There's an unused plot of land near my house. That's not the United States?

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.

Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
>Nomadic life-ways aren't the thoughtless ramblings of a child at play In 11th century eastern europe, Kipchaq nomads did the same - "wandering" as in following seasonal patterns within their lands. But it was not until the 17th century that the steppes were settled - and the settlers weren't Kipchaqs. Imagine if a modern day Ukrainian was presented with a similar indigenous map based on nomadic groups that once roamed his country - it would stretch from the Danube to the Volga! Should we convert the entire pontic-caspian steppe into an indigenous zones for Nogais and Tatars who are related to the historical kipchaqs?
- dylan-m 6y ago
  Is it written into Ukraine's laws (and then quietly ignored) that they should respect those groups' territories and negotiate treaties to resolve issues? Fun fact: British Columbia barely has any treaties because people have ignored the issue for decades. This is incredibly slow going: http://www.bctreaty.ca/negotiation-update http://www.bctreaty.ca/negotiation-update. Edit: Read about Nogais and Tatars instead of spewing nonsense :)
DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
> And by what grounds are they the Bureau of Land Management's? You may be accidentally engaging in a form of whataboutism. The GP questioned whose.land's standards when drawing the borders. But I don't think GP asserted that the U.S.'s claims were any more valid.
- rexpop 6y ago
  > I don't think GP asserted that the U.S.'s claims were any more valid. They've left it up to our imagination what they think is valid. Edit: After reflecting on your response, I've taken out the offending line.
kortilla 6y ago
Nomadic lifestyles don’t scale. It’s not that “living off the land” is somehow trivial or dumb. In order to treat people with complex diseases, develop medicines, avoid famines during the cold, etc, a civilization needs to move beyond a nomadic lifestyle technologically.

Tiktaalik 6y ago

ah yeah "terra nullius", a pretty good excuse if you want to justify colonial occupation of lands that don't belong to you. It's a horseshit excuse sorry.

Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
By what right did the the land belong to the native Americans? Do you think all the native tribes spilled out of Alaska and then neatly fitted themselves into mutually-recognized non-overlapping territories never to be disturbed?
- Tiktaalik 6y ago
  Indigenous people have been in NA for an extremely long time and have sorted themselves into nations over that time just like any where else in the world. If there are overlapping disagreements between Indigenous Nations about land title, as there are with all sorts of modern nations around the world, there are lots of modern mechanisms to settle that. Not sure how any of this has any relevance or should be used as a justification colonialism and for pushing people off their lands.
  - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
    It seems like you are trying to avoid the question. What gives indigenous peoples any moral high ground over later settlers? The indigenous* conquered land from each other and moved - an obvious fact which too often gets left out of the conversation. Then, the Europeans came along and possessed the lands for themselves. And you'll find the same story repeated on every corner of the earth. Continual occupation is just not a thing. * As I've mentioned in another comment, true "indigenous" Alaskans are no more, having been replaced by an unrelated group of people in a later migration to the Americas.
    - thethethethe 6y ago
      You are brushing off the systematic, mass genocide of native people and dispossession of their land by essentially saying that its happened throughout history, that it’s normal. I’m not really sure how this argument justifies anything. The colonization of America is recent. NA indigenous people are still alive and have special designated land that they were forced to move to. They weren’t even given citizenship by default until 1924–less than one hundred years ago > continual occupation is just not a thing I’m not sure where you are getting this. At what point is an occupation over? When the genocide is complete? That hasn’t even happened yet, NA indigenous people are still alive. Do you just expect they to submit, assimilate, and abandon their culture completely?

bjourne 6y ago

Maybe no one owns the land then? Owning land by purchasing a title registered in the State's land registry can hardly be a stronger claim than being a nomad wandering through.

asguy 6y ago
Who owns the laptop you’re currently typing on?
atomi 6y ago
I would add, the first people to make use of the land. And just for some additional context, nearly all Native North Americans share the same ancestral DNA.

undersuit 6y ago

Should we adjust our maps now too? There's an unused plot of land near my house. That's not the United States?