• KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    yeah, which i why i consider the use of pseudo occupation, as opposed to like, settlement or something. There aspects of occupation, but up to the current modern day, there are natives in positions of power within the US government, and those with sovereign control over their own land as well.

    Although to be fair, most people didn’t have very many rights until the 1970s lmao.

    • ZombiFrancis
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think those ‘aspects of occupation’ are quite relevant. The treaties weren’t respected and Americans would just remove the people, bury tribal lands in fill material and build on top.

      For example, emphasis mine: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tse-whit-zen

      This village site, which includes longhouse areas, ceremonial areas, places for fish and clam drying, was** occupied by the Klallam until the 1930s.[4] During the early 20th century, businesses owned by European Americans built a number of lumber mills on top of the village site** at the waterfront during the expansion of the lumber industry. Because the ground was covered with 15 to 30 feet (4.6 to 9.1 m) of fill, the village and cemetery site was preserved through this period.[3]

      Notice that timeline: ‘occupied until 1930s’ and ‘Early 20th century.’ The people were removed and they buried everything until 2004 when they started excavating skeletons. This isn’t all ancient history and it hasn’t really been… amicable.