4 ms·

> This map is cool, but I'm still embarrassed to say I don't understand the concept of "indigenous" particularly well or why Europe, Africa, and Asia have so fe

by II2II 5y ago

> This map is cool, but I'm still embarrassed to say I don't understand the concept of "indigenous" particularly well or why Europe, Africa, and Asia have so few indigenous people. The difference is likely linguistic. When it comes to Europe, Asia, and Northern Africa, we have a tendency to talk about nation states, empires, kingdoms, or other political structures. When it comes to the Americas or Southern Africa, we have a tendency to talk about tribes that are pigeonholed into larger cultural groups based upon their similarities. In some cases, that may be fine in the sense that it differentiates how societies functioned. In other cases, it is used to trivialize the degree of development reached in the Southern Hemisphere and the Americas even though there is evidence of developed societies. As an example of this, I have never heard of the indigenous people of the British Isles being referred to as tribal even though I have heard to indigenous being used to refer to the peoples who lived there prior to the various waves of invasion (e.g. Roman, Viking, and likely others).

throwaway894345 5y ago
I think we largely use “tribes” and “nation states” and so on correctly. You don’t hear the Aztecs or the Mayans or the Inca referred to as a “tribe”, but rather as civilizations. And similarly, we use “tribes” to refer to various units of Europeans in history (Celtic tribes, Germanic tribes, etc). There have also been some relatively recent discoveries that (especially North American) Native American societies were considerably more advanced than Europeans encountered because old world diseases advanced ahead of European settlers and wiped out native civilizations before Europeans were on scene to capture it in writing. But this also isn’t European supremacy, it’s understandable ignorance—it’s taken significant advances in archeology and technology (I think much of the evidence of advanced civilizations came from Lidar mappings of settlements which have long since been engulfed by jungle or forest). > As an example of this, I have never heard of the indigenous people of the British Isles being referred to as tribal even though I have heard to indigenous being used to refer to the peoples who lived there prior to the various waves of invasion (e.g. Roman, Viking, and likely others). I’ve know relatively little about the indigenous Britons, but we know that there were Celtic tribes in Britain prior to the Roman conquest, and we even know the names of many of said tribes. The fact that this isn’t commonly known isn’t some sort of European superiority as you suppose, but rather that we haven’t done a good job of educating people about British history.

by II2II 5y ago

throwaway894345 5y ago

I think we largely use “tribes” and “nation states” and so on correctly. You don’t hear the Aztecs or the Mayans or the Inca referred to as a “tribe”, but rather as civilizations. And similarly, we use “tribes” to refer to various units of Europeans in history (Celtic tribes, Germanic tribes, etc). There have also been some relatively recent discoveries that (especially North American) Native American societies were considerably more advanced than Europeans encountered because old world diseases advanced ahead of European settlers and wiped out native civilizations before Europeans were on scene to capture it in writing. But this also isn’t European supremacy, it’s understandable ignorance—it’s taken significant advances in archeology and technology (I think much of the evidence of advanced civilizations came from Lidar mappings of settlements which have long since been engulfed by jungle or forest). > As an example of this, I have never heard of the indigenous people of the British Isles being referred to as tribal even though I have heard to indigenous being used to refer to the peoples who lived there prior to the various waves of invasion (e.g. Roman, Viking, and likely others). I’ve know relatively little about the indigenous Britons, but we know that there were Celtic tribes in Britain prior to the Roman conquest, and we even know the names of many of said tribes. The fact that this isn’t commonly known isn’t some sort of European superiority as you suppose, but rather that we haven’t done a good job of educating people about British history.