Conversation
Notices
-
Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Thursday, 11-Jan-2018 02:57:56 UTC Hallå Kitteh @h Pointing out that you're indigenous mostly makes sense if you were colonized and largely replaced. -
Nate Cull (natecull@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 11-Jan-2018 03:09:11 UTC Nate Cull @h I would love to see more easily-accessible world maps and timelines that illustrate our best available knowledge about the cultures and empires of the Americas, Africa, India, Eurasia, Pacific, coordinated with each other.
There's a huge gap in understanding just what was going on in all parts of the world while our Euro-centric history was going down.
Something like a Google Earth with culture/empire boundaries or trade routes and a scrubbable timeline would be awesome.
Hallå Kitteh likes this.Hallå Kitteh repeated this. -
Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Thursday, 11-Jan-2018 03:11:55 UTC Hallå Kitteh @h I don't see any implications on property rights, just a description of where people came from. But maybe I'm too European to see it. -
Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Thursday, 11-Jan-2018 05:36:43 UTC Hallå Kitteh @h Nobody colonized Mongolia. The Mongols are still the dominant demographic. Nobody colonized Rome. It fizzled out, assimilated, got assimilated and practically post-colonized all of Europe through the Church.
You are indigenous in contrast to some other group who came in and took over, pushed you to the side. Who is the usurper to whom you would be comparing indigenous Romans and Greeks? Nobody identifies as Ostrogoth or Frank these days, and they didn't really populate the peninsula anyway. Rather, they appropriated the culture and called themselves Romans, sort of like how nobody can invade China without becoming Chinese in the process.
If the Mongols or Manchu had out-populated the Han, then maybe we would have talked about the indigenous Han, but they didn't.
Since every people called "indigenous" has been displaced by some stronger invader, I can see why there would be an association with inferiority, but what word would you use that wouldn't take on the same connotations?
The Canadians call their there-before-the-Europeans peoples "First Nations", should that be widened to other situations? Or would doing that without conferring any rights to anyone thus called just mean that a decade later you would be asking why we give so many people the inferior label of First Nations? -
Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Thursday, 11-Jan-2018 06:12:03 UTC Hallå Kitteh @h For me it just says the Han were not displaced. They had a change of leadership, then a century and a half later changed it back.
You don't have to be nostalgic to describe imperial facts. Some empires, like the English and Spanish empires in the Americas, colonized, assimilated and displaced. Other empires, like the Roman, Mongol, Persian, Turkish and Habsburg empires, and the European empires in Africa minus South Africa, mostly conquered, exploited and ruled.
There is a connotation of technological disparity, but that sort of goes along with the displacement. You can't push someone to the side if you are at technology and wealth parity, then you can only rule.
The Wikipedia definition of "native to a land or region, especially before an intrusion" completely explains your examples.
The Incan empire may not have been native to the regions it conquered, but relative to the larger and stronger Spanish empire that conquered it, it was native to South America. I don't see that you have to love or long for the Spanish empire to agree with that. -
Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Thursday, 11-Jan-2018 06:30:33 UTC Hallå Kitteh @natecull @h That is awesome! Considering shelling out the 9 USD for the high-res PDF.
http://sashat.me/2017/06/03/roman-roads/ https://social.heldscal.la/attachment/1213136
-