History questions not worth their own thread V

[Dachs]

Back in my day we didn't learn history; we made it.

 

[Lord Baal]

Back in my day we didn't learn history; we made it.

Since you're German, that may not be a good thing.

 

[Dachs]

look out here comes the master race

 

[Arakhor]

Back in my day, there was no history. The end of the Ice Age was "last year's warm snap".

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Back in my day, there was no history. The end of the Ice Age was "last year's warm snap".

Did your cousin get caught vacationing in Alaska when the "warm snap" happened?

 

[Arakhor]

No, but my brother did get stranded on a melting glacier and accidentally became the first man to cross the Bering Strait.

 

[Ajidica]

I'm starting to wish that space lizards did actually rule the world. They couldn't have fouled it up as much as you guys have!

 

[Arakhor]

It's not my fault that the intervening 10,000 years haven't been kind to the planet! Back when I was young, if you didn't know someone, you knew someone who did!

 

[TheLastOne36]

Apologies for taking such a long time to respond. I got busy and forgot to reply, then I lost the tab, than I forgot until today.

This needs to be said. "Negrito" is an offensive term which the Spanish coined because some people in the Philippines had dark skin. The Spanish later elaborated on this idea and used this difference from surrounding peoples to justify killing of "Negrito". Subsequent to this, racialists picked up on the word and applied it to other Southeast Asian peoples who also happened to have dark skin. This similarity was then spun out into a grand narrative in which "black people" were exterminated and replaced by superior "whiter people". Thus contemporary European imperialism was justified in terms of a whiter people conquering a browner people.

There also remains little evidence that the people grouped under the "Negrito" banner are or should be considered related. Thus while the presence of some visible features i.e. curled hair might be interesting, these work to conceal recent works which have shown that "Negrito" have thus far proven to be more closely related to the "non-Negrito" peoples who surround them than to other "Negrito". Likewise, it also needs to be stressed that there is little evidence that the modern Negrito groups represent lineal cultural or whatever descendants of the peoples who pre-dated the migration of Austronesian speakers. I will discuss to this in further detail below and leave it up to the individual reading this to make the links in their own time.

Fair enough, I am not familiar with these new studies. What is the appropriate term to call Negrito groups then?

Yes, all existing "Negrito" groups in Southeast Asia - so far as I'm aware of - speak Austronesian or Austroasiatic languages. Notable examples include the Aeta, Aiti, Batak and Lumad groups who speak languages that sit within the Philippine subgroup of the Austronesian group of languages. Also of interest are the Orang Asli who speak Asli languages which sit within the Austroastiatic (Mon-Khmer) language group. This would put the Orang Asli linguistically closer to modern Thailand and Lower Burma than Papua New Guinea. Similarly the Mani speak another Mon-Khmer language. I must stress that while these languages are related dto existing groups most are distinct and have some degree of longstanding. I'm not exactly sure of how old these languages are but I do know the general consensus is that represent adoptions that pre-date the Christian era.

Do you not find it very possible that these groups adopted the language of their invaders? Like in many other parts of the globe? That was the argument Jared Diamond used and I think is a perfectly valid explanation. Take another Negrito group, the Irulas of India, who have adopted the Tamil language. If adoption of languages occurred pre-Christian era, then that is plenty of time to diversify into distinct separate languages. (Look at Latin, Bantu or Austronesian languages as examples)

The exception to this rule are the Andamanese languages. However, while these languages are not themselves Austronesian or Austroasiatic in origin, there is scant evidence of them having a linguistic relationship to the Papuan language group. It is also possible that the Ongan languages which are usually grouped with the Andamanese languages might be Austronesian in origin. This means that the narrative of Andamanese languages as complete linguistic isolates and hold-overs from the 'first migration' of people out of Africa might have some significant problems. Furthermore, even if the Andamanese languages were hold-overs there is little evidence or reason to connect them to the Papuan language group. Shared 'dark skin' does not in this case make a strong case for a linguistic relationship.

Papuans and Andamanese both being possible remnants of the first migration of people to Austronesia&Austrolaysia is a good enough reasoning to connect the dots and conduct further studies.

An issue with Papuan languages is that the population of New Guinea have been present for a very long time in rather isolated conditions. This has resulted in there being many many different language groups with rather unclear relations being classified as Papuan. (Wiki tells me over 60 language families, with hundreds of isolates)

Taken from wikipedia: "Stephen Wurm stated that the lexical similarities between Great Andamanese and the West Papuan and Timor–Alor families "are quite striking and amount to virtual formal identity [...] in a number of instances". However, he considered this not evidence of a connection between (Great) Andamanese and Trans–New Guinea, but of a substratum from an earlier migration to New Guinea from the west."

Irrelevant. Two words: Biogeographical boundaries.

So you are saying that the same group of people who conquered and established a long-standing population on every single habitable island it has landed on in Austronesia, Micronesia and Polynesia, ranging from Sumatra, Madagascar, New Zealand, Borneo and Java, failed to do the same in New Guinea because of local fauna and flora?

I am intrigued. Most sources suppose that agricultural assisted population growth before Austronesian contact explains the continued survival of New Guineain languages. I have never seen a "failed" conquest mentioned in connection with this issue.

That's the point I am making. Austronesians reached New Guinea and failed to penetrate the island and establish a long-standing Austronesian population* because of the inhabitants of New Guinea already having established dense populations as a result of assisted agricultural growth, which is very different from the local inhabitants the Austronesians encountered in Borneo, Madagascar or elsewhere who were presumably hunter-gatherers.

* - Though I already did mention Austronesians making a genetic, linguistic and cultural impact on the New Guinean northern lowlands and the Solomon Islands.

I am again intrigued. Could you please provide a citation for these ground-breaking epidemiological claims?

I said it seemed indicative as that is what usually occurs when a people with diseases are introduced to an environment with people who lack any such immunities. I don't think I need to prove the logical conclusion of the effect of diseases on a population group lacking immunities.

As for Austronesian migration in particular, this is the logic Jared Diamond used in GGS regarding their expansion into Austronesia, and also for why they failed to penetrate and conquer New Guinea. New Guineans already developed immunities through their close contact with domesticated animals (alongside with other advantageous effects of having already developed agriculture).

Of course it would be difficult to prove this as nobody was around to record the interactions of the Austronesians with the natives, but if it happened elsewhere in the world, why not in Austronesia?

All the experts I am aware of concur with the broad outlines of what I have said. The question of how Papuan languages survived and expanded in geographic range after contact with Austronesian speaking people is an interesting one. (We know this because Highland Papuan languages, which would have had limited contact with Austronesian speakers, have Austronesian loan-words present in their languages. These have been argued persuasively to have been adopted in about 1500BC. This is strongly supports the view that the Papuan highlands were not inhabited until sometime after 1500BC.) However, I do not see how your point is meant to undermine the case for linguistic assimilation?

Sorry you lost me, what is the case for linguistic assimilation?

I also have zero idea what the second clause is supposed to be hinting at.

Elsewhere on the planet the peoples with agriculture, diseases, technology and all of their implications went on to conquer and replace peoples who lacked such advantages. That is the central premise of Guns, Germs and Steel. Examples of this include the Americas, Bantu expansion in Africa, Russian expansion in Siberia and presumably Austronesian expansion in Austronesia and Melanesia.

I ask why did the local inhabitants who lacked those advantages uniquely assimilated the newcomers (Austronesians) instead of being conquered and replaced by them? That is the position I think you are holding and I want to know why the original inhabitants of Austronesia differ from Amerindians, Khoisan or Uralo-Siberians?

 

[Mouthwash]

I ask why did the local inhabitants who lacked those advantages uniquely assimilated the newcomers (Austronesians) instead of being conquered and replaced by them? That is the position I think you are holding and I want to know why the original inhabitants of Austronesia differ from Amerindians, Khoisan or Uralo-Siberians?

Not only isn't it going away, it's mutating.

The people who lived in the Americas before the Europeans are called "Native Americans." They are not Indians. They are not American Indians. They are not "Amerindians." They have nothing to do with the Indian subcontinent and have no linguistic, ethnic, or cultural relation to Indians.

Sorry, I obsess over this.

 

[Dachs]

Not only isn't it going away, it's mutating.

The people who lived in the Americas before the Europeans are called "Native Americans." They are not Indians. They are not American Indians. They are not "Amerindians." They have nothing to do with the Indian subcontinent and have no linguistic, ethnic, or cultural relation to Indians.

Sorry, I obsess over this.

Logically extending your argument, shouldn't they be "aboriginal Americans", not "Native Americans"? Anybody who was born on the American supercontinent is a "native".

 

[History_Buff]

It's all about First Nations guys.

 

[Dachs]

It's all about First Nations guys.

They weren't first at much of anything, and they don't qualify as nations.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Not only isn't it going away, it's mutating.

The people who lived in the Americas before the Europeans are called "Native Americans." They are not Indians. They are not American Indians. They are not "Amerindians." They have nothing to do with the Indian subcontinent and have no linguistic, ethnic, or cultural relation to Indians.

Sorry, I obsess over this.

In Canada we obsess over the name as well.

Indian is racist and derogatory and pejorative and provocative and insulting, oh no no no, we can't use that. Never mind actual Indian subcontinent'ers being uncomfortable whenever Canadians rant about how horrible and disgusting the term Indian is. Native American? Can't use that either, doesn't refer to all pre-Columbian population, only North American ones, and white people are native to America too so it can't really apply anymore. Indigenous? Sounds too much like that racist, pejorative, derogatory provocative insulting Indian term and we Canadians are polite too a fault. First Nations? Canadian-only term for all pre-Colombian inhabitants exclusively north of the 45th parallel, and excludes all Inuit and Metis because other First Nations don't like them. How about a simple 'Natives'? Nope, sounds too similar to the days of imperialism and colonialism and once again can be used for indigenous groups worldwide. Aboriginal? It works but it refers to aboriginal peoples globally, not exclusively to the Americas.

How on earth am I too refer to all pre-Colombian inhabitants in North, South, Central Americas + Caribbean?

On a serious note, I used Amerindian because while it's root is "American+Indian" which might not be considered correct, it for the point of discussion quickly and easily establishes the context of the group of people I am referring too without any arguments or exceptions unlike most other available terms. edit: In light of Sydhe's post, meaning all native inhabitants of the Americas who came in the first few migrations from the old world, ie. excluding Inuits and other such groups.

As for it mutating, yup. They(whew ) have become a part of the Latin American gene pool definitely. Many if not most people are Mestizo or have some pre-Colombian ancestor in them. Further they are obviously still around. For example I can recall my neighbors in Venezuela were 100% Andean. (what particular group however I do not know) All this happened to a lesser extent in North America obviously. Many people on this forum even cite they are 1/16 Cherokee or whatever.

Going back to the topic which was Austronesian peoples migration to Austronesia, I think it very unlikely nearing on impossible that the invading Austronesians committed 100% absolute genocide to the local inhabitants. Like everywhere else where similar migrations and interactions occurred, the local inhabitants were assimilated to the invading group. Whether that assimilation being genetic, linguistic, or cultural or all 3. I think this also gives credence on the existence of 'Negrito' populations existent in the Indo-Malayasian Archipelago + Philippines.

 

[sydhe]

Native American and American Indian are both fine, except that I'd include Inuits, Eskimos and Aleuts as Native Americans who are not American Indians.

 

[sophie]

Not only isn't it going away, it's mutating.

The people who lived in the Americas before the Europeans are called "Native Americans." They are not Indians. They are not American Indians. They are not "Amerindians." They have nothing to do with the Indian subcontinent and have no linguistic, ethnic, or cultural relation to Indians.

Sorry, I obsess over this.

Well the same can largely be said about the Dravidian Speaking peoples of the Southern Tip of the Subcontinent who are lumped into the "Hindi speaking Indians" in the minds of most Americans, even though they don't speak an Indic Language and in large part aren't really culturally or historically (excepting the last 300-600 or so years) related to the Northern Indic-speaking peoples.

What about the multitudes of Austronesian, Austro-Asiatic, Tai-Kadai, and Papuan speakers who for long have erroneously been termed as having resided in the "East Indies".

I mean if you really want to get into it we really shouldn't be calling them "Indians" at all. The proper word for speakers of "Indic Languages"/residents of Northern India should be Bharata or something similar. "Sindh" really only applies to the area around the Indus river.

Language is arbitrary yo.

 

[History_Buff]

They weren't first at much of anything, and they don't qualify as nations.

Yeah, first doesn't really apply (though it does a decent job of pointing out they were here before whitey), but I don't know why they wouldn't be considered nations. Certainly not nation states, but at least by Wiki's definition, certainly nations.

Nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.

 

[Mouthwash]

Logically extending your argument, shouldn't they be "aboriginal Americans", not "Native Americans"? Anybody who was born on the American supercontinent is a "native".

"Native American" is more well-known. However, I don't like to have to constantly check context to figure out if someone's referring to Native Americans or, you know, actual Indians.

 

[Traitorfish]

Contemporary scholarship prefers "Indian". So do most Indians.

/that discussion

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, first doesn't really apply (though it does a decent job of pointing out they were here before whitey), but I don't know why they wouldn't be considered nations. Certainly not nation states, but at least by Wiki's definition, certainly nations.

By the most broadly employed form of the word "nation", perhaps. But that puts them in the same category as the Black Knife Nation and the Who Dat Nation and frankly that's ridiculous.

Contemporary scholarship prefers "Indian". So do most Indians.

/that discussion

Well, yeah, duh.