mistiklest

mistiklest t1_j56ogid wrote

> Only question I have is what is the time period for this?

I think it's more of an archive of the places that still extant Indigenous groups count as their homelands than it is a historical or archaeological document.

3

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

mistiklest t1_j3z90h3 wrote

I think part of the problem for me, at least, is that I don't see any significant moral difference between Um-Helat and Omelas, yet they're presented by Jemisin as if they're somehow different. The only difference I can see is the number of sufferers, and Jemisin seems, in the end, to present Um-Helat as desirable, but the suffering of the child in Omelas as undesireable.

4