• Ho_Chi_Chungus [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      In the bottom left it shows the current year in the Aztec calendar, presumably cut off and the “current year” in the Gregorian calendar at 2015 AD. I’m 95% sure this is just some guy’s alt history map, especially considering how many wack ass names some of these places have

      • Khrux@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s definitely an alternate history map, and I hope it’s an accurate potential map of an uncolonized North America if it’s cultures grew to nation state sizes.

        I’m European so I’m not meaning to offend, but there’s something very interesting to me try to visualise how America could have grown without colonisation, and perhaps this is through my European lense but I’d imagine borders would move and groups would swallow eachother up. The scale of countries on this map is pretty comparable to what we see in Europe and Asia, but I don’t know enough about America to know if this is respectful to the placement and potential of Native American groups (e.g I think I’ve read before the the Comanche are a successful seperation from the Shoshone that was largely due to their expansion due to horses, which would have happened very differently sans colonisation), and I’m not even sure if this map follows natural borders like mountains and rivers, largely because I’m just not that familiar with America.

        • The Aztec empire being the dominant force on the continent could be a very unfortunate situation for everyone living there.

          They were so unpopular with every surrounding nation (because of all the murdering and kidnapping and human sacrificing) that when the Spanish showed up, the vast vast majority of the soldiers that fought against the Aztecs were from the local peoples.

        • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          this map is complete nonsense because some of these groups only exist as a result of interactions with europeans, and even some of the other ones are from completely different places before europeans came in.

    • Gabrial@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Could you point me to where I could better learn about these regions then? No offense, I’m just actually curious now.

  • ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The First Peoples of North America definitely didn’t have such sharp, well defined border lines. It’s not as of they had a bunch of written treaties establishing hard borders.

    • Khrux@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is a conceptual alternate history map of modern day North America without colonisation. It’s still reasonably inaccurate of course but it’s not meant to accurately portray the borders of a pre-colonised North America.

      • Mercival@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sioux is a name given by the colonizers. It’s not just the borders.

        • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          iirc its a word for enemy, IE the colonists encountered a rival tribe, and never cared to correct their mistake.

          • Mercival@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The Wikipedia says it comes from a French misspelling of an indigenous word that could be used to describe the people. So it might be a little less offensive than that, but still not great.

            • Meowoem
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              In English we use Norse meaning northern people, unsurprisingly it is the word originally used to describe them by people south of them. Those people now called Germans get their name from ceaser when he invaded from Italy, named by the Greeks, who in turn derive their modern name from the Romans because they called themselves Hellanes… Spain gets it’s name probably because it was located near a rabbit on a Roman coin… They also named Britain of course and all of them would be the ones going to the new world and naming things there

              It’s weird but it’s pretty common

      • Meowoem
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why? Europe had firm (occasionally changing) boarders for centuries before the sixteenth century, do you think they were simply behind on an inevitable development or that contact with the rest of the world would necessitate their development?

        I think it’s interesting to try and imagine situations where firm boarders aren’t established. In such a situation it’s interesting to consider what rules could or would exist regarding immigration and outsider communities.

    • spez
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think they are referring to the British settlements that led to modern America…?

    • Ghyste
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The illegal immigrants in this case would be European settlers and the added text makes the meme, I think. I had to double take on this one as well.

      • tubaruco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        yeah, but i just dont really understand the map. is it just a map showing where the native population lived before colonization or is there an actual joke in there?

    • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Is this one of those “this is uncomfortably political to me and I don’t like that like that, therefore it isn’t a wholesome chungus 100 maymay” things? grillman

  • Heliumfart
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    The British Colombia part of the map is very inaccurate. Not sure about the rest. Appreciate the sentiment though.

    • Mercival@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Also Sioux isn’t a native name, it was given to the Lakota people and others by the French colonizers.

    • Sloogs@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Haida Gwaii taking up the entire coast and interior yet isn’t even in the map gave me a chuckle.

    • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah honestly there was something like 500+ tribes before the colonization, and I think most of them migratory, so there would definitely be a much rougher appearance to a more accurate map.

    • PatFusty@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Obviously this is 2015 AD meaning as 2015 years After Diogenes which is closer to 1500 CE or Century of Erasmus.

  • JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why are the Hopi drawn in Texas? They were/are in current northern Arizona. Texas had Tawakoni, Wichita, Kickapoo and Comanche tribes.

  • kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s interesting how these lines are still pretty accurate for cultural divisions in colonial NA. At least at at quick glance.

        • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Okay let’s break this down into the three unrelated parts:

          Which genocides? Sounds to me like you know that the genocides you’re referring to actually have huge amounts of evidence, so you’re intentionally avoiding saying which specifically to avoid scrutiny.

          Most genocides ever committed? The country has only existed since 1776, and humans have been committing genocide for a hell of a lot longer than that.

          none that they actually discovered via authentic journalistic investigations

          What the hell is that meant to mean? Who is “they”? None of what? What makes a journalist’s investigation “authentic”?

            • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nonono, you’ve passed the point of getting off that ride.

              What’s happened here is you came in spouting absolute bullshit with nothing to back it up. Then you got called out for it by this “hipster”, and realising that, you’re trying to back out by pretending you never wanted to have this conversation in the first place.

              Now you’re doing the internet equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling LALALA to convince yourself you’re right, and that you’re not giving your government a free pass to commit genocide, it’s just those damn westerners trying to “make you have morals” and “form sentences that actually mean something”.

    • snowraven
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be fair more people died from the diseases brought by the settlers.

      • BCsven@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Apparently that is false. While disease did kill some, as well as early settlers, the rest was actual murder.

        • snowraven
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Unless you could link a credible source it’s hard to accept this as anything more than a mere opinion

          • BCsven@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            https://www.history.com/news/native-americans-genocide-united-states

            You can start the journey of learning the truth here. There are lots of sources of info ( if you ignore Canada/ USAs own accounts in some instances because of whitewashing history) . Also the churches reporting many died of germs from early settlers is a fake after take, because in that era they had no concept of germ theory, that discovery came later.

        • snowraven
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s very less evidence to support that. I can only recall one incident where a blanket infected with small pox was handed out to a tribe and the officer who did that was later severely reprimanded.

          But anyhow, I am not trying to downplay the ill intent of European settlers, I will just quote this here “history is written by victors”. The blanket incident is all I recall about deliberate disease spreading. who really knows? How many hundreds of such incidents went unreported?