Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CTHistory42 OP t1_j55lq8b wrote

Reply to comment by maxanderson350 in "Native Land Digital" is an indigenous-led, Canadian-based non-profit group seeking to raise awareness of where original Native American tribes owned property. They admit that this is a work in progress, not perfect, and seek corrections. Thought the CT map (with some NY) was quite interesting. by CTHistory42

Good questions and points all. I just posted it to get the discussion started - with the disclaimer that no one is saying it's perfect. Most of all, the group itself.

Here's the website for them: https://native-land.ca/

12

maxanderson350 t1_j55oj2q wrote

Thank you very much for sharing the link. A few things I noticed on the website that I found interesting:

  1. Europe, Asia, and the Middle East are more or less empty of indigenous peoples. I found that particularly odd because those are the parts of the world historians know the most about due to extensive records and archeological finds.
  2. From a quick review of CT tribes, it does appear that this is a map not of the "original" peoples of Connecticut but rather the people who the European settlers found. I consider "original" misleading because, for example, while the Tunxis were found living along the Farmington River by Europeans in the early 1600s, there is no basis to believe (and seems quite far-fetched to suggest) that the Tunxis were in fact the "original" people of that land. Simply put, the idea that the land did not change hands over thousands of years is hard to believe.
13

CTHistory42 OP t1_j567h9m wrote

Your Native American historical knowledge is far superior to mine. You're right about the use of the word "original". But it's always interesting to see how r/Connecticut will respond. There are some very talented/knowledgeable folks on this site

7

mistiklest t1_j56hyer wrote

> Europe, Asia, and the Middle East are more or less empty of indigenous peoples. I found that particularly odd because those are the parts of the world historians know the most about due to extensive records and archeological finds.

The way they seem to be using the term indigenous peoples seems to be in distinction to colonizers. In this sense, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East don't have indigenous people, because they've not been colonized.

Then again, Europeans, Asians, and Middle Easterners also spent a lot of time conquering and killing each other.

2

Lost_city t1_j56x87a wrote

But even parts of Europe were colonized. For example, Latvia was one of the last parts of Europe to become Christian. Germans conducted a series of crusades to conquer the people, and established a ruling structure over the indigenous people there for centuries that resembled later colonies all over the world.

3

mistiklest t1_j56xv0q wrote

Yeah, that's the sort of thing I had in mind with my last sentence.

1

maxanderson350 t1_j5702er wrote

Perhaps that is how they are using the term. But if the term "indigenous" is being used solely to convey the inhabitants of land prior to being conquered then Europe, Asia, and the Middle East would have an almost unlimited number of indigenous peoples.

I'm not sure I understand any distinction though regarding spending "a lot of time conquering and killing each other" as I wouldn't assume the Americans were any different.

1