They mean populated with homo sapiens, really isnt any appropriate words to use, cant say populated because other homo species probably dwelled in North America just not homo sapiens.
Can't really call other homo species people because still a vast difference, similar to us calling apes people but much closer.
Any indication of what they were (Homo ergaster? Homo erectus?)?
Do we know if they had a propensity to eat kale and avocado :P ?
If Homo erectus made it to east Asia(‡), and given that as far as we know it was possible to walk from Asia to America back then, it's not difficult to imagine that some of then did make it to the Americas, but raises the question of why they didn't survive.
I got into a very nasty discussion with someone on here over Latin American history once.
As much as I love a lot of things about Hacker News, most users here have never discussed the indigenous histories of the Americas, so remain ignorant as to how to express themselves in such discussions.
To be clear, you should not be downvoted.
And to others oblivious as to why "peopled" is wrong: To people is frowned upon when discussing early histories of the Americas because it connotes that before the arrival of Europeans, aboriginals were not people and there was a lot of "empty space."
There were plenty of people in the Americas. The vast genocides across all of the Americas by the hand of European governments were due to a culture clash and the European immigrant's need for hegemonic power.
After the deaths of most indigenous population, Europeans used rhetoric to convince people that "vast, empty" lands needed to be "peopled." Genocide was used to replace native tribes with European immigrants.
A lot of the lands that were already rich in resources and on their way to healthy growth (prospering) did not need to be "peopled" by European immigrants.
Yes, if you know all this information and still use "peopled," you should be ashamed of yourself.
Here is a map of all the tribes in just North America:
What I don't understand about your making this argument here is that the article uses "peopled" exclusively to describe what happened 11,500 years ago. It doesn't use it at all to discuss the much later arrival of Europeans.
Is your argument that the verb "to people" is so poisoned by its misuse for the arrival of Europeans that it shouldn't be used even to describe those who were genuinely among the first Homo sapiens to arrive in the Americas? (I'm aware that "the Americas" is a contentious term, but I'm following your usage here.)
16 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 41.1 ms ] threadCan't really call other homo species people because still a vast difference, similar to us calling apes people but much closer.
Do we know if they had a propensity to eat kale and avocado :P ?
If Homo erectus made it to east Asia(‡), and given that as far as we know it was possible to walk from Asia to America back then, it's not difficult to imagine that some of then did make it to the Americas, but raises the question of why they didn't survive.
(‡): https://australianmuseum.net.au/the-first-modern-humans-in-s...
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_start=1800&year_e...
https://www.etymonline.com/word/people
As much as I love a lot of things about Hacker News, most users here have never discussed the indigenous histories of the Americas, so remain ignorant as to how to express themselves in such discussions.
To be clear, you should not be downvoted.
And to others oblivious as to why "peopled" is wrong: To people is frowned upon when discussing early histories of the Americas because it connotes that before the arrival of Europeans, aboriginals were not people and there was a lot of "empty space."
There were plenty of people in the Americas. The vast genocides across all of the Americas by the hand of European governments were due to a culture clash and the European immigrant's need for hegemonic power.
After the deaths of most indigenous population, Europeans used rhetoric to convince people that "vast, empty" lands needed to be "peopled." Genocide was used to replace native tribes with European immigrants.
A lot of the lands that were already rich in resources and on their way to healthy growth (prospering) did not need to be "peopled" by European immigrants.
Yes, if you know all this information and still use "peopled," you should be ashamed of yourself.
Here is a map of all the tribes in just North America:
PDF file: http://www.tribalnationsmaps.com/uploads/1/0/4/5/10451178/pi...
Other maps: http://www.tribalnationsmaps.com/store/c1/Featured_Products....
NPR article: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/06/24/323665644...
Site of the maker of these maps: http://www.tribalnationsmaps.com
Is your argument that the verb "to people" is so poisoned by its misuse for the arrival of Europeans that it shouldn't be used even to describe those who were genuinely among the first Homo sapiens to arrive in the Americas? (I'm aware that "the Americas" is a contentious term, but I'm following your usage here.)