> What defines an "indigenous" people?

This map is mostly a still picture of where different tribes and ethnicities were when they first encountered Europeans (or written history).

"indigenous" French, for example, is harder to define because there was no written history or very little. Are the people who painted the Lascaux caves [0] the "indigenous" French? After them there were Bronze Age and Iron Age cultures that evolved; where they descendants of the Lascaux people or part of a group that settled the area?

Same thing with Greenland and eastern Canada, the Viking made some descriptions of the natives that more or less matches what Europeans latter observed. But it's not clear they were talking about the same culture [1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascaux

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skr%C3%A6ling

I think you don't see a lot of this in Europe, Africa, or Asia because 'indigenous' in this context implies that the people who were there 'first' have been replaced by people who came from somewhere else. In Europe especially, this mostly happened before recorded history, and the borders of cultures and nations have changed so many times since then, it's hard to point to any one group as 'indigenous' in those areas.

In Africa, while there was a lot of colonization, in most places the indigenous people were not displaced (and replaced) to the extent that they were in Europe, Australia, or the Americas, so whoever built this map has probably not spent as much time documenting them.

And finally, I put quotes around 'indigenous' and 'first', because for the most part this is a map of the groups of people who were most recently replaced; before the map of tribes in the Americas you see in the link, there were larger cultures/empires that rose and fell (Inca, Aztec, Maya, Mississippian, etc).

> In Africa, while there was a lot of colonization, in most places the indigenous people were not displaced (and replaced) to the extent that they were in Europe, Australia, or the Americas

The latest genetic evidence suggests there was actually a very high level of replacement of the indigenous inhabitants of a large part of central/southern Africa, e.g.

Despite a gap of 5,000 years in some cases, all four of the children’s genomes were remarkably similar to one another. But compared with the DNA of modern Africans, their genomes were more closely related to those of the hunter-gatherer groups in west central Africa that are sometimes known as Pygmies than they were to those of contemporary Cameroonians or other Bantu-speaking populations.

The researchers also used the genomes to understand even older events in human history. The four children seem to descend from a group of Homo sapiens that branched off from the common ancestors of our species more than 200,000 years ago — perhaps even earlier than the ancestors of distinct Indigenous southern African groups known collectively as Khoesan peoples. Previous studies of modern human genomes had suggested that these groups descended from the oldest distinct lineage of Homo sapiens. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00167-5

So populations who'd been living in Africa for 200k years were displaced and replaced just recently, in fact the tale seems quite familiar - original hunter gatherer populations replaced by agriculturalists. Europe and Asia are much the same, nearly everywhere.

> In Africa, while there was a lot of colonization, in most places the indigenous people were not displaced (and replaced) to the extent that they were in Europe, Australia, or the Americas

Huh? The Bantu expansion mostly happened well within what in the rest of the world is the historical period. The people the ancient Egyptians documented to their south do not exist today. The replacement of the population of South Africa was late enough that it happened under white rule.

There was no phase where African people were replaced by Europeans, but that's not at all the same question.

> In Africa, while there was a lot of colonization, in most places the indigenous people were not displaced (and replaced) to the extent that they were in Europe

No, the Bantu expansion was mass genocide on a continental scale. The bulk of africa was previously populated by brown skinned people and pygmies, not by Bantus, who originated in the west Niger delta. From that delta, they exploded, exterminating the rest of south saharan Africa. Most of the natives were killed but some were enslaved and kept as food - an entire continent genocided, with many tribes eaten to extinction.

You can see evidence of this with DNA studies and by the fact that virtually all the brownskinned people or pygmies are gone. Sub-saharan africa is now a black skinned continent inhabited primarily by Bantus, when it was previously a heterogeneous continent with black and brown skinned people as well as pygmies.

It may have taken more time than the European conquest of America, but it was much more bloody.

> Most of the natives were killed but some were enslaved and kept as food

It should be noted that the pygmies are generally in a symbiotic relationship with the Bantu today - competition between the groups is limited by the fact that the pygmies inhabit non-arable land.

This would have been different when the Bantus arrived, of course.

> In Africa, while there was a lot of colonization, in most places the indigenous people were not displaced (and replaced) to the extent that they were in Europe, Australia, or the Americas, so whoever built this map has probably not spent as much time documenting them.

The Arab conquests of North Africa would like to question this.

Not necessarily from a genetic perspective, North Africa is predominantly Amazigh genetically (and Copt in Egypt), however much people may identify as Arab[0] culturally, and have been there since before recorded history.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_North_Afric...

> What defines an "indigenous" people?

Generally part of it is history of colonization. Good example of non-european related indigenous people are the Ainu, who are considered indigenous in comparison to the colonizing Japanese.

What about groups which haven't been colonized in any significant way? What about non-indigenous groups which have been colonized? It seems pretty arbitrary.

> What about groups which haven't been colonized in any significant way?

They are not generally considered indigenous. What about them?

> What about non-indigenous groups which have been colonized?

Examples of such groups?

> They are not generally considered indigenous. What about them?

I think there are examples, but it depends on how broad your definition of “colonized” is. The most extreme cases are the various isolated tribes of the world (of course, everything is interconnected, so a disingenuous person could argue that our impacts to the climate which affect their lifestyles constitute a kind of colonization, which is to say that disingenuous people like to stretch semantics).

> Examples of such groups

Virtually any non-indigenous people who have been conquered by an empire. The Irish are one of thousands of concrete examples.

>Examples of such groups?

Indians, Irish, many African countries, many SEA countries, etc

A often forgotten group are indigenous Austronesian Taiwanese people who were continuously displaced since the Qing dynasty but were subject to major cleanse and upheaval during the KMT retreat to Taiwan, leaving them to ~3% of the Taiwanese population.

> This map is cool, but I'm still embarrassed to say I don't understand the concept of "indigenous" particularly well or why Europe, Africa, and Asia have so few indigenous people.

The difference is likely linguistic. When it comes to Europe, Asia, and Northern Africa, we have a tendency to talk about nation states, empires, kingdoms, or other political structures. When it comes to the Americas or Southern Africa, we have a tendency to talk about tribes that are pigeonholed into larger cultural groups based upon their similarities. In some cases, that may be fine in the sense that it differentiates how societies functioned. In other cases, it is used to trivialize the degree of development reached in the Southern Hemisphere and the Americas even though there is evidence of developed societies.

As an example of this, I have never heard of the indigenous people of the British Isles being referred to as tribal even though I have heard to indigenous being used to refer to the peoples who lived there prior to the various waves of invasion (e.g. Roman, Viking, and likely others).

I think we largely use “tribes” and “nation states” and so on correctly. You don’t hear the Aztecs or the Mayans or the Inca referred to as a “tribe”, but rather as civilizations. And similarly, we use “tribes” to refer to various units of Europeans in history (Celtic tribes, Germanic tribes, etc).

There have also been some relatively recent discoveries that (especially North American) Native American societies were considerably more advanced than Europeans encountered because old world diseases advanced ahead of European settlers and wiped out native civilizations before Europeans were on scene to capture it in writing. But this also isn’t European supremacy, it’s understandable ignorance—it’s taken significant advances in archeology and technology (I think much of the evidence of advanced civilizations came from Lidar mappings of settlements which have long since been engulfed by jungle or forest).

> As an example of this, I have never heard of the indigenous people of the British Isles being referred to as tribal even though I have heard to indigenous being used to refer to the peoples who lived there prior to the various waves of invasion (e.g. Roman, Viking, and likely others).

I’ve know relatively little about the indigenous Britons, but we know that there were Celtic tribes in Britain prior to the Roman conquest, and we even know the names of many of said tribes. The fact that this isn’t commonly known isn’t some sort of European superiority as you suppose, but rather that we haven’t done a good job of educating people about British history.

Part of the issue is Asia, Africa and so on do less indigenous studies. Some of that may be due to less interest in who the previous occupiers were. That said, there are ample maps showing migrations and settlement patterns through history of Europe and the Middle East in particular usually in rough slices of time but aren't represented here. The black sea area and the Middle East had lots and lots of turnover as there were movements and conquests after conquests and movements.

One reason not to include them on the map is that would illustrate the nature of waves and conquests thought-out the ages until relatively recently when territories congealed. however, this would undermine the notion that the Americas had little turnover of land control and that there was less intertribal warfare and that extra continental conquests are different.

> This map is cool, but I'm still embarrassed to say I don't understand the concept of "indigenous" particularly well or why Europe, Africa, and Asia have so few indigenous people

The Wikipedia page for Indigenous peoples claims that the majority of indigenous people live in Africa and Asia. [0]

My first thought for indigenous people in Asia would be Tibetans, but if I google "are Tibetans indigenous?" it appears to be a matter of debate.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples

To illustrate the complexity of such questions, here's a map of hypothesized haplogroup spread across east asia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryukyuan_people#/media/File:Y-...

What about "most recently replaced" as a definition"?

I think that would incorporate a whole lot of people that we don't normally consider "indigenous". Moreover, in some cases indigenous people haven't been fully replaced. It also doesn't clear up the confusion about "what is a people" and "how do you test for individual membership in a given people group?". And what about the "land ownership" inferences that we usually hang off of "indigenous". If Native Americans take back Ohio, does that make non-Native-American Ohioans "indigenous"? This example is admittedly contrived, but the whole concept feels contrived to me.

I suppose I could clarify to "replaced as the majority 'people'”. I agree with you on every point though. I have a lot of sympathy for people who feel displaced or disinherited, or end up a lower-class citizen by virtue of something that ultimately comes down to clearly genetic differences with the society in which they live. I think it's ultimately meaningless to say that someone whose ancestors lived in Europe in 1400 is an invader and someone whose ancestors at the same time were living in the Americas and had far fewer immunities is necessarily a victim of same. Nor is the converse necessarily true, but the whole thing is a big fucking mess.

> the whole thing is a big fucking mess.

Well said.

IIRC Aztecs constantly replaced people in adjacent territories (and vice versa), does that mean some are more indigenous than others?

Every way you slice and dice it, 'indigenous' is another word for 'pure bred' or 'Fatherland', which, when you use its synonym, makes it sound as dangerous of an idea as it is.

The reason indigeneity is not applied to Europe or Asia is because those cultures are just as indigenous as the natives of other parts of the world, but they've advanced well beyond that.

The resurgence of indigeneity as a concept is due to a resurgence of the noble savage myth on the behalf of europeans and a xenophobic, racial purity craze on behalf of certain self-described indigenous (it's hardly a universal thing).

In reality, being part of a lineage that's been on a certain plot of land gives you no more rights or authority than anyone else. Land division, ownership, and use should be determined by the needs of currently existing people, not tied indeterminably to the past. Why is it that we are happy to toss out any old tradition, and any old legal document, in order to bring it up to date with modern needs, but we simultaneously need to kowtow to people who claim their authority solely from the immobility of their ancestors?

What a needlessly divisive, inaccurate, and frankly disgusting characterization.

The literally definition reads: "Indigenous or less commonly indigenous : of or relating to the earliest known inhabitants of a place and especially of a place that was colonized by a now-dominant group"

In most modern contexts it's used to refer to the diverse peoples that inhabited a land prior to European colonization.

In extension, here in Canada the Métis People (explicitly descendants of MIXED European and Indigenous ancestry) are recognized as an Indigenous group with unique language and cultural practices. They are by no means thought of as "pure bred" as you reductively tried to frame it.

The University of Alberta has an excellent, widely accoladed, and free MOOC on Indigenous Canada that I highly recommend you, and anyone else interested in learning more, consider taking: https://www.coursera.org/learn/indigenous-canada

Why do we give special status to “the earliest known people to inhabit a land”? I’m not trying to challenge any particular privilege afforded to any particular group, but I do want to reconcile the entire conception of categorizing people in this way with our modern, western moral framework.

In particular, doesn’t the idea of legally recognizing “a people” seem pretty close to 20th century racial ideologies (per the parent’s point)? How do we test an individual for membership in “a people”? Is there a one drop rule? Do you have to pass a cultural competency test? Speak a language?

What does it mean when we say “such and such land rightly belongs to such and such people”? Even if that people group was the earliest known, that doesn’t mean they didn’t likely take it from an earlier group.

It seems to me that the entire concept is fraught with the same problems that beset 20th century racialism. And please note the distinction between “indigenous people are bad” and “categorizing people into ‘indigenous’ and ‘other’ seems like a bad idea”.

> Why do we give special status to “the earliest known people to inhabit a land”?

Because generally speaking the later arrivals view the earlier people as subhuman and engage in horrific acts of violence against them. So it's not really that "earliest known people = special." It's more that displacing, dominating, or eradicating a people ought generally be frowned upon, and that's what has happened to many (most? all?) indigenous peoples in places like the Americas, Australia, etc.

I don't have any answers for you about how to test for membership, and you're absolutely right that this particular aspect of the issue is fraught. I'm not an expert but I believe that in the United States at least this question is left to the tribes themselves. ("The courts have consistently recognized that in the absence of express legislation by Congress to the contrary, an Indian tribe has complete authority to determine all questions of its own membership."[0]) That seems reasonable on its face at least, but it does have the unfortunate side effect of recreating the issue one level up: the United States government decides who is and isn't a tribe, and that's just as fraught.

These aren't straightforward issues, you're right, and they deserve a candid and in-depth treatment. But let's not get too far from the fundamental point, which is that it's pretty awful to show up on the shores of a continent where a bunch of people live and then destroy them and/or their way of life.

0. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK233104/

> Because generally speaking the later arrivals view the earlier people as subhuman and engage in horrific acts of violence against them. So it's not really that "earliest known people = special." It's more that displacing, dominating, or eradicating a people ought generally be frowned upon, and that's what has happened to many (most? all?) indigenous peoples in places like the Americas, Australia, etc.

Many changes in people groups with respect to territory are simply migrations. Is there any evidence that violent conquest is the norm and migrations are the exceptions? My amateur understanding of history and archeology is that migrations are the norm and conquest is the exception (although posing this as a binary is itself misleading because violence is a matter of degrees). Moreover, lots of people who aren't considered indigenous have been brutally conquered, but we don't afford them special status (e.g., virtually any people which has been conquered by virtually any empire).

I certainly agree that many indigenous peoples in history have been brutally conquered, but considering they aren't the only ones and many of them haven't been brutally conquered, it seems like a crumby proxy.

> These aren't straightforward issues, you're right, and they deserve a candid and in-depth treatment. But let's not get too far from the fundamental point, which is that it's pretty awful to show up on the shores of a continent where a bunch of people live and then destroy them and/or their way of life.

Fully agree (who wouldn't? is this even controversial?), but I don't understand the "indigenous is a useful proxy for peoples who have suffered" argument.

All good points. The site is run predominantly by folks from North America, and I live in the United States, so there's a particularly North American flavor to this discussion. That's naturally going to focus on the specific experiences of North American indigenous peoples, which, at least in my reading, are unquestionably experiences of conquest. So in that context, I'm not even sure it's a proxy; it seems like it's actually at the heart of the matter. Whether it's a reasonable proxy at a global scale across all of time, or even an intelligible concept when removed from an American context, I don't know.

Fair enough, but there are also global organizations that deal in the indigenous/other dichotomy, including the UN (which has a special department or council concerning indigenous peoples). So there’s clearly a more universal notion that does my make sense to me.

Its more useful to see the movement to support indigenous people as a counterforce to attempt balance out the power dynamic between the colonizers and colonized. Without recognizing indigenous people as a group, they can not be provided the support that they need and they would get stamped out by the colonizers. In many cases its matter of trying to figure out how we can get the indigenous culture to survive at all.

Of course it is another discussion completely if every culture is something we want to try to rescue. Right now the general atmosphere is that yes, we do want to try to have as many cultures survive as possible instead of the great assimilation thinking of previous centuries.

> Its more useful to see the movement to support indigenous people as a counterforce to attempt balance out the power dynamic between the colonizers and colonized. Without recognizing indigenous people as a group, they can not be provided the support that they need and they would get stamped out by the colonizers.

Wouldn’t it be all the more effective and righteous to categorize between “colonized peoples” (rather than simply indigenous) and “other”? Or even “cultures at risk” versus “other”? Or do the Inuit have some stronger claim than the Irish or the Armenians?

I guess I'm ok with nuance and gray areas and anti-colonialism in a way that doesn't feel like a contradiction. Sorry that's hard for you.

Hey Aaron, I think you're taking undue offense. There's nothing particularly "colonialist" about anything I've posted, and indeed "colonialism" isn't limited to indigenous peoples, which is kind of my point. I'm wondering what utility, if any, can there be in dividing the world into "indigenous" and "other". If anti-colonialism is the ax you'd like to grind, then why not divide the world into "colonized" and "other"? Why use "indigenous" as a proxy?

Why use utility an a measure to begin with? I think we're going to have to agree to disagree simply because of the number of assumptions being brought into this discussion.

Well, I’m not sure why we use “utility”—that seems like a profound question. But that’s the criterion we’ve used to choose our concepts practically forever, so why make the exception for this one concept?

I have to hand it to you. It's clear that you're adept at creating confusion around ideas by "just asking questions", and creating cohesion around fuzzy concepts by stating opinions as facts. I've participated in too many of these "debates" to know where this is headed. If you genuinely want educate yourself on these topics, there are resources to do so. I encourage you to seek these out.

When you argue like this, it betrays your inability to defend your position or even admit as much. And anyway, this isn't a high school debate with winners and losers, it's about understanding and advancing. The defensiveness is unnecessary.

indigenous and colonized are more or less synonyms, its not really a proxy of anything. Why specific word is used instead of another to refer to something is a question more suited for linguists. But if I had to make a guess, I'd venture to say that people prefer to use a term to describe themselves that doesn't center around the negatives.

I don’t think that’s true. I don’t think the Welsh or Irish are on anyone’s list of indigenous peoples, for example. Maybe “colonized” has some specific academic meaning that I’m misapplying to the Welsh, Irish, etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the Métis not entitled to the same tax benefits as other indigenous groups?

> 2) Can an MNO citizenship card be used for a tax exemption?

> No. Métis are not presently exempt from paying provincial or federal taxes. You should not attempt to use an MNO citizenship card for this purpose. If you do, you will be personally liable for any legal consequences.

(from https://www.metisnation.org/registry/citizenship/frequently-... )

The same page almost comes close to answering the question I had, which is, "what make a person Métis"? It seems to be someone who is not otherwise "aboriginal" but also not entirely not so either.

> "Indigenous or less commonly indigenous : of or relating to the earliest known inhabitants of a place and especially of a place that was colonized by a now-dominant group"

And exactly, what am I supposed to learn from this? What happens if you descend from the earliest known inhabitant of a place? Don't we all? Exactly what are you supposed to gain from being a descendant of such a person as opposed to those who are not? Do I get brownie points for having a nose?

> In extension, here in Canada the Métis People (explicitly descendants of MIXED European and Indigenous ancestry) are recognized as an Indigenous group with unique language and cultural practices.

Exactly my point. The word is either meaningless (anyone who's different is indigenous) or it refers directly to a notion of racial purity. You can't have it both ways. Either its meaningless and useless or its meaningful and dangerous.

I belong to such a creole group, and I don't understand why it ought to make me so special. Guess what... it doesn't. Governments can classify us as whatever they want. I'm indigenous, like all other humans, in that I descend from the earliest known inhabitants of many places, presumably. And I'm also a mix of many cultures, like EVERY other human being on the planet. Oh also, I'm the child of conquerors, because literally everyone is. No one is special. People who think their ancestors make them special deserve the highest forms of criticism.

EDIT: one more thing:

> In most modern contexts it's used to refer to the diverse peoples that inhabited a land prior to European colonization.

How needlessly eurocentric

> the diverse peoples that inhabited a land prior to European colonization

maybe we can just rewrite that subtly, to get

"the diverse peoples that inhabited a land prior to one of the most cataclysmic mass death events in the history of humankind, in which roughly 10% of the total human population of the planet died"

any better?

What’s the point? That Europeans are uniquely, intrinsically evil and Native Americans are noble savages? Or is it more likely that Europeans and Native Americans are both human groups (with all of the entailed capacity for creativity and destruction) who occupied different positions on a power spectrum (including asymmetrical immunity) when they came into contact?

The point, despite your defensive posturing about Europeans, is that the largely unintentional introduction of disease by Spanish explorers and missionaries was a cataclysm for the Americas unlike anything seen on any other continent.

Sure, not long after, they sent armies to conquer the land, but that's not part of the die off that took place before most of those armies got off the boats.

I'm not pretending there was anything more or less noble about the residents of the Americas vs. those of Europe (although the latter do have a spectacularly bad record).

> The point, despite your defensive posturing about Europeans

I’m not defensively posturing? I’m not even European. Sometimes people are just interested in the truth—no need to suppose some nefarious motive.

> I'm not pretending there was anything more or less noble about the residents of the Americas vs. those of Europe (although the latter do have a spectacularly bad record).

Terrific, I’m glad we agree here (although again Europeans have a bad record because they kept a written record, not because they were uniquely barbarous).

> I'm not pretending there was anything more or less noble about the residents of the Americas vs. those of Europe (although the latter do have a spectacularly bad record).

The amount of brainwashing in this sentence is absolutely insane. You state a thing about no group being more or less noble and then immediately contradict it with European exceptionalism. When will the gaslighting end?

While conquest and control have been the hallmark of powerful human civilizations everywhere on the planet, it seems that the European versions post (roughly) 1600 have taken a different approach than their American, African and Indo-Asian equivalents. While the latter have all engaged in something roughly approximating colonialism, it seems the it is mostly the European powers that have repeatedly engaged in attempts at complete extermination of those they manage to subjugate.

I don't see this as a European trait so much as an extension of the religious and political doctrine of the period. The combination of Abrahamic ("personal relationship with god") religion powering a divine right of kings and technological war superiority seems to be a particularly vicious combination. Other cultures and civilizations have engaged in some brutal oppression too, but for the most part they seem to have understood that other humans were (1) humans (2) potential assets and subsequently engaged in a more complex aspirational relationship with the conquered than most European cultures have tended to do.

> European powers that have repeatedly engaged in attempts at complete extermination of those they manage to subjugate.

Did Europeans attempt to exterminate peoples in Asia and Africa?

> I don't see this as a European trait so much as an extension of the religious and political doctrine of the period. The combination of Abrahamic ("personal relationship with god") religion

“personal relationship with God” is solely a trait of Christianity. Anyway Christianity and other Abrahemic faiths are widespread across many civilizations which are peaceful so I doubt this factor.

> divine right of kings

This has been a feature of many civilizations going back at least to the Egyptians but probably much earlier. Nothing particular to Europe or Christianity (or Abrahamic faiths more generally) here either.

> technological war superiority

Here I agree, but I actually think this was probably a relatively minor advantage compared with the disease factor which meant the Europeans were fighting peoples whose civilizations were positively collapsing.

> Other cultures and civilizations have engaged in some brutal oppression too, but for the most part they seem to have understood that other humans were (1) humans (2) potential assets and subsequently engaged in a more complex aspirational relationship with the conquered than most European cultures have tended to do.

I don’t think there’s any truth to this. Many other peoples enslaved, exterminated, sacrificed, and even ate their vanquished. Europeans stand out merely in their efficiency.

> potential assets and subsequently engaged in a more complex aspirational relationship with the conquered than most European cultures have tended to do.

What utter nonsense. The british colonials were epic in their attempts to integrate their colonized into their societies. Gandhi himself trained to be a lawyer at a prestigious law school (the Inner Temple) in England. See the plethora of ex-colonials in England itself. Same with the spanish (whose colonized peoples have literally adopted the moniker latino/a to describe themselves) and the portuguese (who -- as the descendants of portuguese colonization -- are pretty popular overall in the areas they colonized).

Pretty sure you are responding to the wrong person or misread my post or something.

Sorry, meant to reply to grandparent.

> “personal relationship with God” is solely a trait of Christianity.

I don't think this is true. Judaism and Islam both feature the same fundamental concept: there is a single god who cares about you personally and that your behavior and belief will shape that relationship in terms of direct, personal consequence. This is not true of the pre-Abrahamic faiths, it's not true of the religions of Asia or Africa.

> Many other peoples [ ... ]

Can you name any other conquerors in history who had a clearly and repeatedly stated goal of the complete elimination of the conquered? I'm not saying there are none, but I'm not aware of them.

> I don't think this is true. Judaism and Islam both feature the same fundamental concept: there is a single god who cares about you personally and that your behavior and belief will shape that relationship in terms of direct, personal consequence. This is not true of the pre-Abrahamic faiths, it's not true of the religions of Asia or Africa.

"Personal relationship with God" refers to the idea that God knows us as individuals and cares about us individually (rather than as an abstract collective). That's a uniquely Christian theology. Islam and Judaism both believe that God knows and cares about his creation in general, but that a relationship with God isn't possible because God is beyond human understanding (Christianity also agrees that God transcends human understanding, but disagrees that this prevents a personal relationship). Indeed, both Islam and Judaism maintain that "God is not a person", while Christianity maintains that Jesus is the literal personification of God.

> Can you name any other conquerors in history who had a clearly and repeatedly stated goal of the complete elimination of the conquered?

1. I don't accept that this is true for European powers in any general sense at any point in history.

2. Selection bias--even if prehistoric peoples did have this stated goal, we would be far less likely to have any evidence. We do have evidence of prehistoric genocides and all manner of other violence, and we don't have any compelling framework for why Europeans would be uniquely evil. Even still, history records many attempted and successful genocides by non-European powers (e.g., Rwanda, Cambodia, Ottoman Empire, etc) and many European genocides which predate the Christianization of Europe (contrary to your framework about why Europeans are/were uniquely evil).

3. I don't accept that "repeated stated goals of genocide" is the right metric when we can look at actual genocides.

A quick google search for "islam personal relationship with god" immediately provides numerous articles, research papers and books that contradict your claims about Islam, most written by practicing Muslims.

My question wasn't about the totality of the European record, but specifically about what was done when they arrived in the Americas.

Weird. My top hit is:

> Islam rejects the doctrine of the Incarnation and the notion of a personal god as anthropomorphic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god

Mine is:

https://www.faridamuktar.com/2020/09/01/muslims-do-have-pers...

Is it possible that a layperson's blog might not be a high quality source of information?

Could it be wikipedia, a definitively non-Muslim source, is not a good source of information on Islamic belief and practice. The practice and theology of lay muslims is no more important than the theology of their leaders. There are more lay muslims than clerics (same is true of every other religion)>

A 'personal god' in this sense means a God who is a person, not a God with whom one has a close relationship.

That is not how I was using it when I introduced the term to this sub-thread.

> "the diverse peoples that inhabited a land prior to one of the most cataclysmic mass death events in the history of humankind, in which roughly 10% of the total human population of the planet died"

That one's ancestors suffered in some way does not give you any more authority or importance today.

"in some way" makes it all sound a bit abstract.

The impact of disease on the Americas was arguably numerically larger than actual colonization, and the initial wave (say, 1492-1520) probably wasn't very intentional. So yeah, that particular experience doesn't give anyone "more authority or importance today".

But colonization, first by the Spanish and later by northern Europeans, was literally a war whose goal was frequently the complete annihilation of the population already in the Americas. It was a brutal, vicious war (that in a number of senses continues to the present day), and suffering through that does, under most western-ish moral philosophies, give you some status that you otherwise would not have.

Welcome to history and prehistory. Brutality was common and limited only by power imbalances between the conqueror and the conquered. The remarkable thing about the European conquests was that the power difference had become tremendous after tens of millennia of isolation, which allowed the Europeans to visit unprecedented brutality on the native peoples. It wasn’t that the Europeans were uniquely evil, but uniquely powerful relative to those they conquered.

> suffering through that does, under most western-ish moral philosophies, give you some status that you otherwise would not have.

This is an interesting point, but I don’t think the common belief is “indigenous have moral title to the land due to great suffering”, but rather due to “they were the first people in the land at recorded history” so in our collective psyche we errantly assume they must’ve been the first there ever. I deed, if it were merely “suffering” then surely their disease experience alone would suffice? These are at least the reasons I’ve commonly heard, including from people in this thread.

And so what? Disease kills people. What exactly are we to do about it. Your ancestors being more susceptible to some disease doesn't make you special.

What I wrote:

> The impact of disease [ ... ] So yeah, that particular experience doesn't give anyone "more authority or importance today".

What we could do is read a little more carefully, just for starters.