3 ms·

Modern Europe is not a good comparison. Something like Papua-New Guinea is probably closer. Not even sure how far into Europe's past one needs to go to find an

Modern Europe is not a good comparison. Something like Papua-New Guinea is probably closer. Not even sure how far into Europe's past one needs to go to find an ethno-political system similar to B.C. circa 1800. Medieval Europe? The era of Greek city states? https://www.muturzikin.com/cartesoceanie/oceanie2.htm https://www.muturzikin.com/cartesoceanie/oceanie2.htm

vmception 5y ago
Sure, I’ll bite: how would you describe Papau-New Guinea’s system in a way that could quickly convey an enhancement to what the reservation and other treaties around North America, since “Microstate like Europe” doesn’t convey that - to some
- angelzen 5y ago
  To the best of my understanding, B.C. circa 1800 can be described as 'patchwork of sovereign micro-ethnic groups in rugged terrain' Europe microstates: Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican, Liechtenstein, Faeroe, maybe Iceland and Luxembourg. Relics of times long past, historical curiosities. Papua NewGuinea: 832 living languages, presumably each with an independent history tracing hundreds if not thousands of years. Most of them with <3k speakers each. The largest ones with <250k speakers. https://www.languagesgulper.com/eng/Papuan.html https://www.languagesgulper.com/eng/Papuan.html
  - vmception 5y ago
    And how would that mix with losing to a more powerful group which has diplomatic consensus with the rest of the world while maintaining sovereignty and trade with the more powerful winner? I am not seeing how recognizing Papua-New Guinea’s language history addresses that? I’m not familiar with how its governed or if it has to balance cultures, resources and property with an imperial force that merely tolerates everyone else.
    - angelzen 5y ago
      Can't help with that. I'm interested in ethno-geography. Here's a nice map of early XIX century Coast Salish micro ethnic groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Salish#/media/File:Coast_Salish_language_map.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Salish#/media/File:Coast...
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    >> B.C. circa 1800 can be described as 'patchwork of sovereign micro-ethnic groups in rugged terrain So was Appalachia at that time. So too were the expanses of Russia. So too was even Ireland. Pretty much every 17/1800s settled territory without a nearby railroad was composed of tightly-knit micro-ethic groupings. That doesn't meant they were not also part of a larger nation.
    - geenew 5y ago
      Roads and canals do fine for knitting together a nation in the cultural and political sense of the word, and for enforcing/dispensing all the fruits of central government. Europe in the early 1800s was less homogeneous than today, perhaps, but it's strange to claim that areas without nearby rail service were a 'patchwork of sovereign micro-ethnic groups'.
      - sandworm101 5y ago
        And in places like BC, the water network linked everyone.
        geenew 5y ago
        It didn't link everyone into centrally run sovereign nation states, though, which I thought was what we were talking about.
    - closewith 5y ago
      That's definitely not true of Ireland in the 19th or even 18th century. Nothing could be farther from the truth - Ireland at that time was a centrally (and externally) managed state much closer to a modern state than anything described in this thread.

vmception 5y ago

Sure, I’ll bite: how would you describe Papau-New Guinea’s system in a way that could quickly convey an enhancement to what the reservation and other treaties around North America, since “Microstate like Europe” doesn’t convey that - to some

angelzen 5y ago
To the best of my understanding, B.C. circa 1800 can be described as 'patchwork of sovereign micro-ethnic groups in rugged terrain' Europe microstates: Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican, Liechtenstein, Faeroe, maybe Iceland and Luxembourg. Relics of times long past, historical curiosities. Papua NewGuinea: 832 living languages, presumably each with an independent history tracing hundreds if not thousands of years. Most of them with <3k speakers each. The largest ones with <250k speakers. https://www.languagesgulper.com/eng/Papuan.html https://www.languagesgulper.com/eng/Papuan.html
- vmception 5y ago
  And how would that mix with losing to a more powerful group which has diplomatic consensus with the rest of the world while maintaining sovereignty and trade with the more powerful winner? I am not seeing how recognizing Papua-New Guinea’s language history addresses that? I’m not familiar with how its governed or if it has to balance cultures, resources and property with an imperial force that merely tolerates everyone else.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    Can't help with that. I'm interested in ethno-geography. Here's a nice map of early XIX century Coast Salish micro ethnic groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Salish#/media/File:Coast_Salish_language_map.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Salish#/media/File:Coast...
- sandworm101 5y ago
  >> B.C. circa 1800 can be described as 'patchwork of sovereign micro-ethnic groups in rugged terrain So was Appalachia at that time. So too were the expanses of Russia. So too was even Ireland. Pretty much every 17/1800s settled territory without a nearby railroad was composed of tightly-knit micro-ethic groupings. That doesn't meant they were not also part of a larger nation.
  - geenew 5y ago
    Roads and canals do fine for knitting together a nation in the cultural and political sense of the word, and for enforcing/dispensing all the fruits of central government. Europe in the early 1800s was less homogeneous than today, perhaps, but it's strange to claim that areas without nearby rail service were a 'patchwork of sovereign micro-ethnic groups'.
    - sandworm101 5y ago
      And in places like BC, the water network linked everyone.
      - geenew 5y ago
        It didn't link everyone into centrally run sovereign nation states, though, which I thought was what we were talking about.
  - closewith 5y ago
    That's definitely not true of Ireland in the 19th or even 18th century. Nothing could be farther from the truth - Ireland at that time was a centrally (and externally) managed state much closer to a modern state than anything described in this thread.