Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

whose.land

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 264 posts

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#181

Post by d_t_w »

joshuaheard wrote: post #159

I don't see a time scale on the map. If you go back 18,000 years or so, there were no humans in North America. After that, there was a series of migrations from Asia. Certainly, over time, distinct tribes formed, reformed, and disappeared, over varying areas, until we get the current map you see. It would be nice to see a time scale reflect this morphology.

I'm not sure how indigenous cultures are represented in North America today but the map shows Iwi in New Zealand that are present day, not a historical artefact.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#182

Post by patcon »

It's not quiiiite as polished, but I like this website a bit more: https://native-land.ca/

Informationally, it has more layers, including treaties, languages and territories.

It's stewarded by a dedicated [and now native-led] Canadian nonprofit, as opposed to a short-term funded collaboration that whose.land is. Also, it's partnering with other groups like https://nativesintech.org/

(If anyone feels supportive of projects like this, and otherwise empowering indigenous communities, NativesInTech has a Slack team and is very welcoming of non-native contributors :) https://forum.nativesintech.org/t/welcome-to-natives-in-tech... )

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#183

Post by Acrobatic_Road »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #176
Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you are trying to avoid the question. What gives indigenous peoples any moral high ground over later settlers? The indigenous* conquered land from each other and moved - an obvious fact which too often gets left out of the conversation. Then, the Europeans came along and possessed the lands for themselves. And you'll find the same story repeated on every corner of the earth. Continual occupation is just…

[flagged]

You're putting words in my mouth as a red herring.

I pointed out how practically everyone is living on conquered land - yes, even the native americans who wrested it from each other, though you cast shade on this inconvenient fact. So does whose.land, which rationalizes the overlapping amerindian borders like so: "Often, boundaries between territories overlap because the Indigenous Nations were continuously sharing the land and negotiating agreements through their own diplomatic and legal systems." Hmmn...No mention of war or genocide - everyone just got along diplomatically apparently.

Reality check: incidents such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_Creek_massacre evidence my better judgement on this matter.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#184

Post by waffle_ss »

thethethethe wrote: post #171
Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you are trying to avoid the question. What gives indigenous peoples any moral high ground over later settlers? The indigenous* conquered land from each other and moved - an obvious fact which too often gets left out of the conversation. Then, the Europeans came along and possessed the lands for themselves. And you'll find the same story repeated on every corner of the earth. Continual occupation is just…

You are brushing off the systematic, mass genocide of native people and dispossession of their land by essentially saying that its happened throughout history, that it’s normal. I’m not really sure how this argument justifies anything. The colonization of America is recent. NA indigenous people are still alive and have special designated land that they were forced to move to. They weren’t even given citizenship by de…

And you're brushing off all the conflict that Native Americans brought to bear against white settlers (do read some accounts of Apache or Comanche raids some time), and the concessions given to Native Americans after they were conquered (namely their own sovereign nations and plenty of carveouts to hunting and other laws so they can continue to practice their culture unhindered).

They "weren't even given citizenship" because they were considered citizens of their own sovereign nations, not because the US gov't were acting maliciously. For this reason they also weren't required to register for Selective Service to be drafted into WWI (despite this, many non-citizens waived their exemption and registered anyway - maybe they didn't hate the country as much as some might suppose).

I don't know what you expect the US gov't to do when attempts at peaceful coexistence between white settlers and the natives tribes failed. Run away as far as the Apache would chase them (to the Atlantic)? No, they went to war as needed, and even allied with other tribes in doing so.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#185

Post by Gunax »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #114
Gunax wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really not trying to discuss the legality of it. However, that analogy does not match up with what I read. >The first is that going forward, certain major crimes committed within the boundaries of reservations must be prosecuted in federal court rather than state court, if a Native American is involved. So if a Native American is accused of a major crime in downtown Tulsa, the federal government rather than the s…

> certain major crimes committed within the boundaries of reservations must be prosecuted in federal court ( emphasis mine ) > So it's not the territory that determines jurisdiction Seems like there is some contradiction here.

If you are a tribal member, you may go to tribal court and be subject to their laws. If you are not, you won't.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#186

Post by Acrobatic_Road »

thethethethe wrote: post #171
Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you are trying to avoid the question. What gives indigenous peoples any moral high ground over later settlers? The indigenous* conquered land from each other and moved - an obvious fact which too often gets left out of the conversation. Then, the Europeans came along and possessed the lands for themselves. And you'll find the same story repeated on every corner of the earth. Continual occupation is just…

You are brushing off the systematic, mass genocide of native people and dispossession of their land by essentially saying that its happened throughout history, that it’s normal. I’m not really sure how this argument justifies anything. The colonization of America is recent. NA indigenous people are still alive and have special designated land that they were forced to move to. They weren’t even given citizenship by de…

>I’m not really sure how this argument justifies anything.

My argument is not that europeans are in the right because they inflicted upon others what those others inflicted upon still others. My argument is that nobody has a clean record. If your position is that what happened to natives is wrong, then what the natives did to each other is also wrong.

>I’m not sure where you are getting this. At what point is an occupation over?

What I'm saying is you will be hard pressed to find a territory that has been continually occupied by one group since the arrival of humans. At some point each territory was probably wrested from some prior group via the usual means. Exceptions apply. Isolated islands come to mind.

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#187

Post by s1artibartfast »

neonate wrote: post #168
s1artibartfast wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how do you differentiate "hearing from the heart" and "agree with me and acquiesce to all remedies that I alone propose"?

To me that question sounds like asking how I differentiate "eating a pizza" and "petting a cat". They're obviously not the same.

Is one allowed to hear from the heart and then disagree, or is disagreement evidence that someone didn't try hard enough?

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#188

Post by Acrobatic_Road »

Press2forEN wrote: post #169
Tiktaalik wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ah yeah "terra nullius", a pretty good excuse if you want to justify colonial occupation of lands that don't belong to you. It's a horseshit excuse sorry.

Even the land that was occupied by what we call "natives" was previously occupied by various flora and fauna. The previous settlers had no right to migrate to the area anymore than the Europeans did.

Just wait until some archaic new-world hominids are dug up, like neanderthals in europe. Wonder how natives would react to that...

Re: Whose Land – Indigenous Nations of North America

#190

Post by marc_abonce »

patcon wrote: post #182

It's not quiiiite as polished, but I like this website a bit more: https://native-land.ca/ Informationally, it has more layers, including treaties, languages and territories. It's stewarded by a dedicated [and now native-led] Canadian nonprofit, as opposed to a short-term funded collaboration that whose.land is. Also, it's partnering with other groups like https://nativesintech.org/ (If anyone feels supportive of pro…

It actually seems to be the same map in both cases. When I click on any territory in OP's map I'm redirected to the page you linked.
Post reply on HN