There were multiple migrations; tribes fought for land and replaced each other; people arrived by ships; etc.
Nobody even knows who the first settlers actually were — and they’ve likely been replaced more than once. Talk of “indigenous” is usually just a vestige of European colonialism which simultaneously treats the existing population as simplistic while focusing on Europeans events/actions as special in history.
If your tribe arrived 400 years ago and has been here since, you’re as “indigenous” as anyone else — and it’s not surprising they don’t like others taking their stuff. Nobody does.
To go further, I personally don't think the first settlers to a piece of land have a better or more special claim over it than any subsequent group. That line of thinking feels like an appeal to cosmic justice more than anything else.
It's tricky because property rights are legitimately the foundation of a peaceful and prosperous society. It's bad to incentivize violent conquest and theft. But it's also bad to incentivize a society where the way to become wealthy is to tell the best sob story about stuff that happened to your ancestors generations and generations ago.
Property rights, of course, exist within the framework of a civilization that upholds the rule of law, and I agree with you on its fundamental importance as a building block of prosperity.
I realize now that my comment didn't make this clear, but I meant that at a civilizational level, there isn't something special to be the "first" group of people[0] to a patch of land; what matters is whether any civilization to occupy a territory at a given point of time builds enough wealth and strength to defend their claim and way of life against subsequent civilizations to come along.
Numerous other commenters appear to dunk on me for this distinction, but I believe property rights within a civilization are not comparable to this scale. What framework exists at the supra-civilizational scale?
[0]: How do you know anybody was first? Written history and archeological records only go so far.
>builds enough wealth and strength to defend their claim and way of life against subsequent civilizations to come along.
I don't agree with "might makes right", if that's what you're trying to argue.
>What framework exists at the supra-civilizational scale?
International law? E.g. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is sometimes said to be "illegal".
I suppose one could argue that conquest only become illegal with the 1928 Kellogg-Briand pact. So one could argue that attempts to relitigate pre-1928 conquests essentially amount to applying international law retroactively, which might violate Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Of course, just because conquest was "legal" doesn't make it acceptable morally. However, I do think one could use the international law point to argue that Russia needs to pay reparations to Ukraine, but pursuing reparations for pre-1928 conquest isn't valid.
>Before the Pact, the expectations of everyday citizens of the world was that sovereign countries had the right to go to war. Today, most people expect the opposite: that war is unusual, morally wrong, and forbidden except in rare circumstances.
If you have the chance, it's really worth making the trip to Cahokia, IL. It was the capital of one of those civilizations that peaked in the 12th century, and you can still climb the monumental earthworks and gain a sense of the place. Any society that DIYs a mountain in Illinois deserves to be remembered.
I get a deep sense of gell-man amnesia from this paper. I don't have familiarity with all of the regions in the analysis, but the analysis don't match existing RC data for the southwest region at all. The well-understood RC peak numbers for AZ (HU 15) should be about century later than in the study (~1100). The 4 corners region (HU14) should be about 350 years later (~1150). The rio grande should be about 150 years later (~1200-1400), with a barely noticeable decline from 1400-1600. They explain this away as regional averaging, but it's sloppy to have some of the best regional RC datasets in the world available and not use them as analysis controls or even cite the relevant landmark papers. That's to say nothing of the much-discussed difficulty matching RC data to demography.
I don't know how bad the data is in some of the other areas, but I suspect it's not much better.
The population was already declining when Europeans got here. But it dropped precipitously thereafter, starting almost immediately due to disease. By the 1600s, tribes in the east were nearly wiped out. Since the majority of "explorers" came to America after this time, the accounts of the native cultures reflect an already-defeated society.
For years, it was thought inconceivable that the native cultures encountered in the 1600s could have built such elaborate structures. The common understanding was full of racist overtones - these cultures were too "primitive" to have built cities. Reality is that if Europeans met Native Americans in say 1100, the situation would be reversed - the Americas were thriving with trade and cities while Europeans were largely subsistence-farming peasants caught in the dark ages.
If you're interested in this topic, definitely check out "Origin: A genetic history of the Americas" by Jennifer Raff.
The "Dark Ages" are a complete myth and Europeans were far more technologically, culturally, and economically advanced and prolific than Native Americans in the Early Middle Ages, in spite of deurbanization and the other recessions of the time period.
I think you are greatly exaggerating an argument that merely attacks a strawperson: That everything was bad, etc. in the Dark Ages. The world isn't as simple as the strawperson, but the Dark Ages were pretty dark compared to ancient Rome before and, of course, the Englightenment that followed (in which, by a broader definition, we still live).
> Europeans were far more technologically, culturally, and economically advanced and prolific than Native Americans in the Early Middle Ages
Could you share some source to support that, where people can read more?
The argument posited was that Europeans during the "Dark Ages" were inferior economically and culturally to the Native Americans. There's virtually no point in history in which this was true.
>Could you share some source to support that, where people can read more?
The Iron Age
Prolific Written Language
Interstate Commerce
Sophisticated Art, particularly music
Prolific Agrarian societies
Prolific complex architecture
That's just a few examples. There's no single source, it's self evident when surveying the Early Middle Ages.
Em. In 1492, most of the European population were still subsistence farming peasants. Those generally weren't the people who became explorers.
Given disease still would have wiped out the bulk of the Americas had people started to arrive in 1100 and it still would have taken a while before they got very far inland, I'm not entirely sure impressions would have been all that much different.
25 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 76.2 ms ] threadNobody even knows who the first settlers actually were — and they’ve likely been replaced more than once. Talk of “indigenous” is usually just a vestige of European colonialism which simultaneously treats the existing population as simplistic while focusing on Europeans events/actions as special in history.
If your tribe arrived 400 years ago and has been here since, you’re as “indigenous” as anyone else — and it’s not surprising they don’t like others taking their stuff. Nobody does.
Should they have an equal claim?
Can I put in a claim to ownership of wherever you live?
I realize now that my comment didn't make this clear, but I meant that at a civilizational level, there isn't something special to be the "first" group of people[0] to a patch of land; what matters is whether any civilization to occupy a territory at a given point of time builds enough wealth and strength to defend their claim and way of life against subsequent civilizations to come along.
Numerous other commenters appear to dunk on me for this distinction, but I believe property rights within a civilization are not comparable to this scale. What framework exists at the supra-civilizational scale?
[0]: How do you know anybody was first? Written history and archeological records only go so far.
I don't agree with "might makes right", if that's what you're trying to argue.
>What framework exists at the supra-civilizational scale?
International law? E.g. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is sometimes said to be "illegal".
I suppose one could argue that conquest only become illegal with the 1928 Kellogg-Briand pact. So one could argue that attempts to relitigate pre-1928 conquests essentially amount to applying international law retroactively, which might violate Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Of course, just because conquest was "legal" doesn't make it acceptable morally. However, I do think one could use the international law point to argue that Russia needs to pay reparations to Ukraine, but pursuing reparations for pre-1928 conquest isn't valid.
>Before the Pact, the expectations of everyday citizens of the world was that sovereign countries had the right to go to war. Today, most people expect the opposite: that war is unusual, morally wrong, and forbidden except in rare circumstances.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-the-intern...
I don't know how bad the data is in some of the other areas, but I suspect it's not much better.
For years, it was thought inconceivable that the native cultures encountered in the 1600s could have built such elaborate structures. The common understanding was full of racist overtones - these cultures were too "primitive" to have built cities. Reality is that if Europeans met Native Americans in say 1100, the situation would be reversed - the Americas were thriving with trade and cities while Europeans were largely subsistence-farming peasants caught in the dark ages.
If you're interested in this topic, definitely check out "Origin: A genetic history of the Americas" by Jennifer Raff.
I think you are greatly exaggerating an argument that merely attacks a strawperson: That everything was bad, etc. in the Dark Ages. The world isn't as simple as the strawperson, but the Dark Ages were pretty dark compared to ancient Rome before and, of course, the Englightenment that followed (in which, by a broader definition, we still live).
> Europeans were far more technologically, culturally, and economically advanced and prolific than Native Americans in the Early Middle Ages
Could you share some source to support that, where people can read more?
The argument posited was that Europeans during the "Dark Ages" were inferior economically and culturally to the Native Americans. There's virtually no point in history in which this was true.
>Could you share some source to support that, where people can read more?
The Iron Age
Prolific Written Language
Interstate Commerce
Sophisticated Art, particularly music
Prolific Agrarian societies
Prolific complex architecture
That's just a few examples. There's no single source, it's self evident when surveying the Early Middle Ages.
> Prolific complex architecture
> Prolific Agrarian societies
Those did exist in the Americas, off the top of my head, and problably others did too.
I don't mean that sarcastically - maybe you have some expertise.
Given disease still would have wiped out the bulk of the Americas had people started to arrive in 1100 and it still would have taken a while before they got very far inland, I'm not entirely sure impressions would have been all that much different.