shpydar OP t1_iu4gmjf wrote
Reply to comment by tarnok in Canada House of Commons unanimously agrees to describe residential schools as genocide by shpydar
60 different nations all over north america?
There are more than 630 First Nation communities in Canada, which represent more than 50 Nations and 50 Indigenous languages alone. And that does not include the Métis or the Innuit who have different legal status in Canada seperate from the First Nations.
I think you will find there are significantly more than 60 different indigenous nations across all of North America and then even more when you include all indigenous nations from across all the America's.
Funkativity t1_iu4ntnf wrote
> 60 different nations all over north america?
"There were over 60 different nations all over north america"
shpydar OP t1_iu5bof7 wrote
>There are 574 federally recognized Indian Nations (variously called tribes, nations, bands, pueblos, communities and native villages) in the United States. Approximately 229 of these ethnically, culturally and linguistically diverse nations are located in Alaska; the other federally recognized tribes are located in 35 other states. Additionally, there are state recognized tribes located throughout the United States recognized by their respective state governments.
https://www.ncai.org/about-tribes
>Mexico is home to 68 Indigenous Peoples, each speaking their own native language and together accounting for 364 variants.
https://www.iwgia.org/en/mexico/4232-iw-2021-mexico.html
So that is 50 nations in Canada, 574 nations in the U.S. and 68 nations in Mexico for a total of 692 nations in North America.
My point, backed by credible sources, is that 60 is a woefully low underestimation of the number of Indigenous nations in North America.
Funkativity t1_iu5clao wrote
..which is why the person said there were more than 60
shpydar OP t1_iu5h09a wrote
Which is why I said that was a “woefully low underestimation”.
It’s like saying there are more than 35 million U.S. citizens. That statement may be technically true but is useless because it is so much smaller than the actual number to make the estimation completely useless.
Shall we go around in circles again?
Funkativity t1_iu5ikgh wrote
> That statement may be technically true but is useless because it is so much smaller than the actual number
but in this case the low number was more than sufficient to make the poster's point.
if someone is responding to a claim that there is one person living in america, replying with "no, there's more than 35 million" is perfectly fine.
tarnok t1_iu5px2a wrote
>That statement may be technically true but is useless because it is so much smaller than the actual number to make the estimation completely useless.
That is only your personal opinion and will reflect your bias. You're in attack mode and attacking the wrong people. You need a break
tarnok t1_iu5piwo wrote
I knew there was more, I just didn't remember the number and was making a quick comment that was still accurate.
Thanks for the info
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments