Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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