Canadian Maps and Graphics

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Wow. Looks like the South committed more horrible crimes against humanity than simply slavery. How is it possible to have 0% indigenous? Was that what the trail of tears was about? Forgive my ignorance of American history.

To give you a clue, the trail of tears was a result of a policy called "Indian removal".

And yes, it fits basically every modern definition of genocide.

[Acajack]

You can't draw broad conclusions about genocide (which yes did take place in a number of areas) based on those maps. There are other factors like low Indigenous populations even pre-contact in some areas, and the explosive growth of the non-Indigenous population that greatly affects relative percentages.

C'mon guys.

We're all at least out of high school here, right?

[Acajack]

Newfoundland had a real Indigenous genocide and look at its colour.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You can't draw broad conclusions about genocide (which yes did take place in a number of areas) based on those maps. There are other factors like low Indigenous populations even pre-contact in some areas, and the explosive growth of the non-Indigenous population that greatly affects relative percentages.

C'mon guys.

We're all at least out of high school here, right?

Quelle surprise....

I am asking the question because it seems impossible (short of forced removal and genocide) that there is a 0% population of Indigenous people in a third of the continental US.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You can't draw broad conclusions about genocide (which yes did take place in a number of areas) based on those maps. There are other factors like low Indigenous populations even pre-contact in some areas, and the explosive growth of the non-Indigenous population that greatly affects relative percentages.

C'mon guys.

We're all at least out of high school here, right?

Originally Posted by Acajack

Newfoundland had a real Indigenous genocide and look at its colour.

I highly recommend you read up on the 1800s US Indian Removal policies. Yes, yes, disease came first, but that doesn't mean you can downplay the fact that indigenous Americans were ethnically cleansed from east of the Mississippi.

Yes, the Beothuk were exterminated due to various reasons (potentially genocidal), but there wasn't an active campaign to cleanse all indigenous peoples from the island. That's why the Mikmaq continue to inhabit Newfoundland to this day.

[Innsertnamehere]

I’m surprised Hawaii is only 2-3% aboriginal. I always thought it was much higher than that for some reason.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Newfoundland had a real Indigenous genocide and look at its colour.

A bit of a special case, no?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I’m surprised Hawaii is only 2-3% aboriginal. I always thought it was much higher than that for some reason.

Primary source here to save the day:

US numbers I believe are reporting % of Hawaiians that identify as "Native American" on the census, not "Native Hawaiian".

"Native American" race alone or in combination with one or more other races: 2.5%
"Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander" race alone or in combination with one or more other races: 26.2%

For the purists out there, "Native Hawaiian" one race: 5.9% (But as we know in Canada, you're more likely to find a mixed race Hawaiian than a 100% ethnically Hawaiian Hawaiian)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I highly recommend you read up on the 1800s US Indian Removal policies. Yes, yes, disease came first, but that doesn't mean you can downplay the fact that indigenous Americans were ethnically cleansed from east of the Mississippi.

Yes, the Beothuk were exterminated due to various reasons (potentially genocidal), but there wasn't an active campaign to cleanse all indigenous peoples from the island. That's why the Mikmaq continue to inhabit Newfoundland to this day.

I never said the contrary. But this map is a very poor tool to assess where genocides took place.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I highly recommend you read up on the 1800s US Indian Removal policies. Yes, yes, disease came first, but that doesn't mean you can downplay the fact that indigenous Americans were ethnically cleansed from east of the Mississippi.

Yes, the Beothuk were exterminated due to various reasons (potentially genocidal), but there wasn't an active campaign to cleanse all indigenous peoples from the island. That's why the Mikmaq continue to inhabit Newfoundland to this day.

Most of NL's indigenous are in Labrador, Inuit and Innu; the Mikmaq are not indigenous to the island, they went there from NS after European settlement. The extinction of the Beothuk is suspicious, often attributed partially to disease, but also to encroachment of Europeans upon habitat and limited resources, but not an organized effort. However, by today's definitions and standards it's considered a genocide.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Architype

Most of Nfld's indigenous are in Labrador, Inuit and Innu; the Mikmaq are not indigenous to the island, they went there from N.S. after European settlement. The extinction of the Beothuk is suspicious, often attributed partially to disease, but also to encroachment of Europeans upon habitat and limited resources, but not an organized effort. However, by today's terms and standards it's considered a genocide.

The Mikmaq did not inhabit Newfoundland prior to European colonization, but they're indisputably of "North American Indigenous" ancestry, which is what's being measured.

Likewise, the bulk of Oklahoma's "American Indian" population is certainly not "indigenous Oklahomans", but due to historical reasons one in six Oklahomans are of "American Indian" descent.

Originally Posted by Acajack

I never said the contrary. But this map is a very poor tool to assess where genocides took place.

Like O-tacular said: When the indigenous population of an area is approximately 0% when you know that definitely wasn't always true, it might not explicitly show genocide but it definitely should make you start looking in a particular direction.

Here's a broader map I found on Wikipedia:



Larger version (Caution it's huge.) It's a little unsettling that you can vaguely make out the borders of some countries based on their indigenous population %. South America and the Carribean are both especially jarring. Never heard of a native Carribean now have you.

[Acajack]

Pretty sure Ontario has been a *somewhat* better place for an Indigenous person than Manitoba-Saskatchewan, in spite of Ontario's lighter colour on the map.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Newfoundland had a real Indigenous genocide and look at its colour.

Labrador has lots of Indigenous peoples but the island of Newfoundland doesn't. On the island Beothuk people were wiped out and today there are a very small number of Mi'kmaq people with just one reserve that I have visited.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Pretty sure Ontario has been a *somewhat* better place for an Indigenous person than Manitoba-Saskatchewan, in spite of Ontario's lighter colour on the map.

It can vary a lot in Ontario and Quebec from my travels and people I know.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I never said the contrary. But this map is a very poor tool to assess where genocides took place.

I agree that the map doesn't tell much of the story.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Labrador has lots of Indigenous peoples but the island of Newfoundland doesn't. On the island Beothuk people were wiped out and today there are a very small number of Mi'kmaq people with just one reserve that I have visited.

Today NL has lots of people claiming indigenous heritage, in hopes of benefiting in some way. I grew up in NL (island) and never met any indigenous except those from Labrador or Conne River, the one community of of Mikmaq on the South coast. The incidence of people claiming indigenous heritage (est. ~40%) does not line up with the historic reality.

[Acajack]

The number of people identifying as Indigenous has also exploded around me as well. I knew very few as a kid.

Though part of it may be due to historic racism and shaming.

EDIT: I've heard from more than a few people who are actually Métis (incl. Minister Dan Vandal) that for a long time their families simply identified as French or French Canadian as that wasn't as stigmatized in Prairie society as being something like Métis which was associated with Indigenous peoples.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Wow. Looks like the South committed more horrible crimes against humanity than simply slavery. How is it possible to have 0% indigenous? Was that what the trail of tears was about? Forgive my ignorance of American history.

You're reading a little more into that map that can be concluded. Low % indigenous isn't a direct gauge of how many indigenous people were wiped out. How many non-indigenous people migrated to and settled each jurisdiction is the far bigger indicator.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by isaidso

You're reading a little more into that map that can be concluded. Low % indigenous isn't a direct gauge of how many indigenous people were wiped out. How many non-indigenous people migrated to and settled each jurisdiction is the far bigger indicator.

In the case of the Cherokee Nation from the US southeast, their "migration" was forced (trail of tears), and is certainly a much more blatant and obvious form of lethal and deliberate ethnic cleansing than the residential schools up here ever were.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Newfoundland had a real Indigenous genocide and look at its colour.

Some of that will be from Labrador.

I don't think describing what happened to the Beothuk as genocide really makes any sense and it played out before any modern Newfoundland government existed. They interacted with the Vikings and by the 1400's and 1500's they were withdrawing from European contact. They lived to some degree in competition with the Mi'kmaq who were some of the friendliest toward Europeans and by the 1700's had sailing ships and guns. It is a little bit like what happened in New Zealand or Hawaii.

The governor of Newfoundland declared that it was a capital crime to murder any natives in 1769, 60 years before the Trail of Tears began. The last known Beothuk lived out their lives in towns and villages in Newfoundland in the early 1800's.

The Mi'kmaq had the Peace and Friendship treaties with the British crown that began in 1725 and the infamous Cornwallis scalping policy was before the 1752 treaty: https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/.../1581293867988