before the Europeans started slicing it like a piece of meat also.
I get aggravated hearing people say there was never any country called Palestine. There was never a country call The United States of Native Americans either. Yet, it was taken from them.
Provided it's accurate (I don't know enough about the subject). I love maps and think they should be incorporated into school far more than they are.
I've done a lot of hiking in Shawnee National Forest in southern Illinois, and I can see Shawnee on the map there!
That may be due to the fact that my college degrees were in Anthropology though. I do agree that info on Native American history and cultures should be incorporated in elementary and secondary education too.
even back then....any country really - why not recognize we could do so much better if we lived as one?
We only get along in groups of a certain size. Also, if there aren't many of us, we work together pretty well. Too many of us or a life/death situation, and we start killing each other.
I think this just shows dispersion based on native languages.
showing the shift and drift of amerindian nations over time -- especially since, ahem, 1492.
It would also be interesting to see a population map. I've heard that there were significantly more amerindians in the Western Hemisphere than is popularly believed. Significantly more, that is, that suffered the blunt force of genocidal (mostly) white expansion and conquest.
I am a map person, also, & it brings whatever the subject is to life.
PLUS, geography is so much a part of history, & important that facts not be left out.
This is part of an important culture.
My maternal grandmother was one-quarter Cherokee, so I suppose I have some Native American blood along with my Swiss-German and Scots-Irish.
Back when I was in grade school, the injustices against the Native Americans were just starting to be made known.
Yes, this map should be in school books...but five'll get you ten it wouldn't make it into Texas' "patriotic American" curriculum.
One thing I'm curious about, though, is the term "Eskimo"...I've thought that the native peoples of the Canadian Arctic and Alaska prefer the term "Inuit."
The term Eskimo is still in common use, and particularly in Alaska to include both Yupik and Inupiat. No universal term other than Eskimo, inclusive of all Inuit and Yupik people, exists for the Inuit and Yupik peoples. In Canada and Greenland, the term Eskimo has fallen out of favour, as it is sometimes considered pejorative and has been replaced by the term Inuit. The Canadian Constitution Act of 1982, sections 25 and 35 recognized the Inuit as a distinctive group of aboriginal peoples in Canada.
Every time I read about the Eskimo/Inuit controversy, I get a slightly different understanding ... perhaps it is best to recognize the situation is in flux. Last I heard the Alaskan group had decided the "Eskimo" referred to themselves specifically, and not to other Inuit. YMMV, apparently.
Apple recognizes "Inukituk" as the term for the language of the Inuit:
I thought the term "Sioux" was also considered pejorative, but can't find corroboration in a quick search.
Migrated south over the centuries. The rest of the Athabaskans stayed in the north. When the Hopis settled their Mesas, there were no Navajos in the area.
I will use it in my Big History class. We spend a unit on Native American culture and the great dying.
and tracking down a source from a University, for example.
especially food and water. Prime hunting grounds were fiercely protected. Columbus didn't have much trouble when he came to the islands, but the Vikings, British, French and Spanish encountered more difficulty. The boundary lines among the tribes had stabilized some what after years of fighting-thus the Indians were prepared to some degree.
Boundaries were very fluid. Some tribes were more nomadic than others.
His map is more detailed: http://static.squarespace.com/static/5075febfe4b0782fde5414d9/t/51bfdc65e4b00b62a84e8d0f/1371528293927/TRIBALINKSPACEMAPS_ChooseOptions_39x26.pdf
His map was mentioned earlier this year - http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022921869 -
and can be obtained from this site - http://aaron-carapella.squarespace.com/ .
It's a bit of an interesting question whether the names of Indian nations should be in "white-boy speak" or their own tongue, eh?
I know we're already supposed to feel guilty about snatching away portions of the southwest from Mexico. So where is this supposed to fit into that guilt scheme? And are Latinos exempt from needing to feel guilt altogether? (I'm never sure if it's cool to pick on the decendents of the strangely less well know Spainish Empire.) Do they just get to leave the classroom while the white kids get beaten up by the teacher? There are still lots of questions that need to get answered before anyone can hope to start flinging this stuff into kid's faces.
I read that there were up to 500 'nations' in the Americas when Columbus first set foot 'over here'.
We humans aren't very nice people, are we?
and many other once powerful tribes of our people? They have vanished before the avarice and the oppression of the White Man, as snow before a summer sun."--Chief Tecumseh, 1811