Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.