5 ms·

Native Americans represent 1.7% of the US population: https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=3&lvlid=62 https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.as

• nohr 5y ago
  Are you this dense, or is this on purpose?
• utunbu 5y ago
  Tibetan people represent 0.4% of the Chinese population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_people
  • echelon 5y ago
    Tibet isn't China. They got Crimea'd in the "Peaceful Liberation of Tibet"
    • antonzabirko 5y ago
      Exactly. Similar situation, though. Both countries are being unrightfully claimed.
    • utunbu 5y ago
      In replying to > Native Americans represent 1.7% of the US population I think the analogy between (Tibetan people, China) and (native American people, US) makes sense.
    • kunagi7 5y ago
      You can't compare pears to apples. Tibet and Crimea annexations were quite different. Crimea used to be part of Russian Empire and then part of the Russian SSR until it was gifted to Ucranian SSR as a region in 1954. A 65% of the residents are Russians, 16% Ucranians and 12% Crimean Tatars. And most of their population speaks Russian (85%). There were tensions between Russia, Ukraine and Crimea thanks to that transfer (and they haven't disappeared). The annexation was a bad thing economically wise but it was done quite fast and clean. The Tibet was already under Chinese control since the Qing Dynasty (1720). At that time, Korea was also a vassal state of the Qing Dynasty. The Tibet independence (1911-1950) sadly didn't have any strength (obsolete military, bad and few foreign relations) and they were absorbed by the CCP military. Also, they speak different languages, have different cultures and the Han are still a small minority in the region.
  • RHSeeger 5y ago
    But the statement being replied to was > Imagine being called a minority in a place you are the majority which implies that only the area of Tibet is being discussed. And > Tibetan people represent 0.4% of the Chinese population implies that all of China is being discussed. So there's a disconnect there. The comment about Native Americans was presumably being read in the context of "Native Americans in the Unites States", which is a context where they are, indeed, a minority. I expect the original comment about Native Americans was made in the sense of "like how the US treated Native Americans", not "the facts presented (majority, living there for a long time) also apply to the Native Americans". Whereas the reply to that comment was, I assume, made based on the second interpretation. So not dense or intentional, just a different understanding of what was being said, because of ambiguity. And, because people like to feel superior and assume everyone interprets everything the same way they do even when ambiguous, the poor responder got a bunch of down votes lumped on them.
• majormajor 5y ago
  What percentage of the population of the land that is now the US did they represent when Europeans first started colonies there? From the CCP's perspective, would a similar decline in percentage be desirable? From our historical view of the US, are the actions that got us here praiseworthy?
  • jimbob45 5y ago
    To be fair, a majority of the native population died due to the Europeans inadvertently introducing Smallpox. While I agree with your argument as a whole, I would advise against trying to use numerical arguments for Europe's treatment of the natives.
    • Cerium 5y ago
      I interpreted their argument to mean that the Native Americans were 100% of the American population before Europeans arrived.
    • jfk13 5y ago
      > inadvertently introducing Not always inadvertently, perhaps: https://www.history.com/news/colonists-native-americans-smallpox-blankets https://www.history.com/news/colonists-native-americans-smal... Although that article says that "there’s only one clearly documented instance of a colonial attempt to spread smallpox", the fact that there is any "clearly documented instance" of such an attempt is pretty horrific.
• cronix 5y ago
  Yes, only 1.7% after 500 years of....being left alone?
• ceejayoz 5y ago
  In 1491, that number was probably a little different. Give things 500+ years and Tibetans may be down to 1.7% too.