• rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s ok, this map of native American lands is definitely outdated. The Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) lands are much smaller than it should be. As that’s the only tribal name I can actually read, I imagine it’s a similar story for the other tribes.

  • oldGregg@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The bottom picture isn’t accurate, I live on a reservation that isn’t listed.

    If there’s one mistake I notice immediately there’s definitely more.

  • gronjo45@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Are there any good resources to learn more about the vast tribes the North American continent was home to? I’ve always felt ignorant to the rich history and connection with the Earth that the tribes held and passed down.

    Not sure about the accuracy of the top map, but it looks like that format could be a great educational opportunity.

    On a lighthearted note, if you’re from the bay, give Café Ohlone a visit! I had the pleasure of meeting the two head chefs at an event where they cooked for the audience. They showed how candy cap mushrooms, acorn flour, and a duck egg could be incorporated into a brownie mix. I can’t speak for the actual restaurant, but it was delicious what they made :)

    • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      When it comes to extant tribes, many of them have web pages with info about them. The depth of information varies from tribe to tribe, I think typically encapsulating whatever the tribe feels comfortable sharing publicly. However when it comes to extinct tribes, much of what you’ll find will probably be spotty and questionable, as what is known is likely the result of archeology and accounts from nearby tribes.

      It’s really frustrating how difficult it is to learn about the native cultures as someone on the outside. It gets glossed over in school and what you hear in pop culture is often heavily skewed or butchered to put on a good show for the audience. Then, because of how much of it gets butchered, chopped and screwed, the people who actually know the real stories become understandably protective and reluctant to share them. It’d be nice if there was a central, wikipedia-like site run by the tribes where you could learn about their stories and traditions.

    • ZzyzxRoad@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Canary Effect is an amazing documentary about the genocide of Indigenous peoples in North America. It is free on YT. It was where I first learned how brutal the reality was and how devastating to the population. It also shows how it meets the UN definition of genocide. Amazing how we are raised in the US and this is not only ignored in history class, but is instead framed as Indigenous people living happily in Spanish missions and having Thanksgiving with pilgrims.

      If you get a chance to read about John Trudell, he had a fascinating life. He was the spokesman for the American Indian Movement when they occupied Alcatraz in protest of the US breaking their land treaty. The government did not stop terrorizing him and his family after that. There’s also an amazing documentary about him but it’s been a long time since I’ve seen it. I think it may just be called “John Trudell.”

      Both of these will make you walk away angry though.

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unfortunately, not really for the majority of tribes. What we so know is that by the time Europeans had made real efforts to expand westward in North America, The Great Dying had already killed 75-90% of the native population.

      Basically, North America had already endured around 200 years of civilization and population collapse starting in 1450. So even what the tribes know about themselves has to be viewed in the perspective of a people who had just lost 90% of their population in a few generations.

        • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Here is a decent explanation.

          People forget that from the time Christopher Columbus arrived to when Europeans began expanding past the Appalachia is a span of 300 years. That’s longer than we’ve been in a country.

          American expansion would not have been possible without hundreds of years of what is basically a Continent wide apocalypse. Culture just doesn’t survive that level of sustained trauma unchanged.

  • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    Ελληνικά
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Never forget? In some states it’s downright illegal to teach kids that complex, sophisticated and civilized societies existed here before white people showed up.

    • tugash@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      How’s the genocide of a whole continent “average history”? The magnitude of destruction in the Americas is not common and this downplay of a continent-wide genocide is annoying.

        • PyroNeurosis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did they? I was under the impression they came in, did a conquer, and basically left with the conquered understanding that the horde’d be back for their tribute.

  • Blapoo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    But you and I did NOT. I see a lot of people online who can’t make the distinction.

    EDIT: Thanks for replies, all. Some good conversation here

    • nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Of course I’m gonna assume good faith from you here, but I feel like some people boil down issues like this to “well I mean I didn’t do it so stop complaining”, and that’s wildly reductive and irresponsible at minimum.

      Arguing the situation in this way sidesteps the uncomfortable and inconvenient reality that the United States is yet still occupying native land, whether it be Hawai’i, Alaska, or the contiguous territories. Yes it’s entirely possible that mine or your ancestors didn’t perpetuate these things as immigration is and has always been ongoing, but the point everyone misses is that we are still here.

      I couldn’t possibly imagine belittling natives for acknowledging the fact that their land was taken from them by force. Some real colonialist shit.

        • nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          False equivalence, that’s an entirely different historical context. Things can apply to one situation and not another

      • Anonymousllama@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        we are still here

        Yes, people don’t leave occupied land. It’s never happened historically and certainly won’t happen now, that’s the point of occupation. People can acknowledge what happened but in practical terms thinking that somehow all native land will be returned is just naive.

        • nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh well of course, at this point in time it’s been made extremely clear that natives will be getting absolutely no land back, even unoccupied land in the plains for example. There’s no major figures in government even remotely speaking on this stuff in a substantial way, so it may as well never happen. Fucked up stuff on top of all the other fucked up stuff.

          And also to be fair, implying that most anyone here believes that all land should be returned is pretty naive in and of itself - there are absolutely more options than ALL OF THE LAND and NONE OF THE LAND

      • Blapoo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I feel you, and also acknowledge it is a hairy subject on a grand scale.

        I also try to frame the issue in the actual, real moment. I try my damndest to do as little harm as humanly possible to anyone. Should I be forced to give money to someone affected? Land? Should I be punished?

        Who benefits? A grandson of someone displaced? A great great grandson? Whole family trees? How do you make shit like this right after so much time?

        Mostly, I’m trying to encourage thought and discussion. Fundamentally, I think people should be judged on their own merits and actions, not their lineage.

        • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The outcome needs to be negotiated and yes, the Tax Payer should foot the bill for the redress for the actions of the State and individual wealthy Families should foot the bill for the crimes their wealth stems from. For example: the entirety of Oklahoma’s rather impressively inhumane treatment of the Native Tribes needs to be dealt with as the People that profited from the malfeasance are still holding the proceeds of those crimes.

        • nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That will always be an issue until the US government actually has real communication and cooperation with native people.

          I don’t necessarily think that citizens of occupied land are automatically responsible for the past actions of a government (not to say that’s what you implied), but said government that committed the atrocities is. As far as the other part of the equation, I suppose the beneficiaries should be determined by the natives themselves.

    • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you steal someone’s TV and give it to your kid, does that mean the person who it was stolen from shouldn’t get it back? Its the kid’s now???

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      That doesn’t mean everyone living on stolen land gets a pass just because they weren’t the ones to steal it. They have an obligation to make it right.

  • Amends1782@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    This isn’t a meme and should be removed but yes agreed this is like common north america histly knowledge

    • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If more than one entity massacred people, it means massacre is okay? Very strange logic. Do bad things have to be done by only one entity to be considered bad?

  • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The genocide is still ongoing, they just don’t tell you about it. In Canada cops will flat out murder or disappear them right off the streets.

  • rug_burn@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    For fucks sake… 1st off, whether or not this qualifies as a “meme”, it doesn’t fit the accepted norm of what most people expect to see when they click on “memes”

    Secondly, and this may sting a little, but peace as we know it is a relatively new thing in world history. I’ve seen a multitude of other comments here proclaiming all those other genocides were okay because they were thousands of years ago. It’s that “in my lifetime” mentality that just fucking grinds my gears. Through thousands of years of history, one genocide is cherry picked and held up as the worst ever, and the citizens who"benefitted" from it are supposed to pick up the tab? My ancestors weren’t Spanish or English, and my family has been here for about 130 years having come from Germany in 1890. How much of the tab am I supposed to pick up?

    Fact of the matter is, the only constant in human history is war. We’re in a (relatively) peaceful era now, and that’s taking into account Ukraine/Russia, Israel/Palestine, and probably another 20 or 30 wars I’m not up to speed on because I’m American and our media doesn’t seem to actually inform us on world events from countries we don’t buy shit from.

    • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ve seen a multitude of other comments here proclaiming all those other genocides were okay because they were thousands of years ago.

      Where did anyone say it was okay because it was longer ago? Please point me to it, because I read the entire thread and did not see this once.

      The genocide of native new worlders is historically unprecedented and that is fact. I highly doubt that genocides on the same scale, magnitude and horror are commonplace throughout history. I would urge you to support your claim with evidence or examples if you are going to repeat it, otherwise it is entirely baseless.

      How much of the tab am I supposed to pick up?

      However much it takes to bring up the status of the natives to what it would have been had they not been massacred and expelled, and undo the propping up of Western civilization on their backs. If you’d like more specific examples, I’d be glad to give them to you. Just ask.

      We’re in a (relatively) peaceful era now

      Source? That’s a pretty big claim.

    • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Human history is not really a constant war, but that is how Americans have been taught history: as a sequence of wars.

      What’s relatively new are the concept of mass conscription, economic warfare, and total war. The ability to enact war and destruction on a global and constant level is new. The brief cessations in conflict aren’t peace, you’re right, but it is also a newer concept that we are constantly in a forever war.

      • rug_burn@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        While I mostly agree, I never said constant war, but where I will disagree in a sense is, the prospect of total annihilation would have been a factor millennia ago had the technology been there. Pick your era, the Romans, the various Chinese dynasties, the English, etc… if they had the means, they would have likely used it, having zero regard for the impact it would have later, mostly due to a poor understanding of the technology. I do believe, at least between “the big three”, meaning the US, Russia and China, nuclear war is an extremely potent deterrent to all out war. It’s the “kids who want to be in the club” that worry me, everyone from NK to Israel. It sucks, but the atomic cat is out of the bag in a world we’re all forced to live in, and the polarization of politics and other bullshit only work to drive that wedge deeper and push us closer to… bad shit.

  • Gerula@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Interesting, and you just happen to stumble upon and share with us this crucially important and unknown trivia gem of a fact, right?