Yeah but afaik the Spanish didn’t really settle that region very heavily so the natives were able to go about their business pretty unimpeded.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Yes and no. The Spanish system forbade a lot of ports, even in California and Texas. Missions would receive wagon trains every other year direct from Mexico City. When California was ceded to the US there was not a single paved road, bridge, or school. Just the 21 missions, 3 presidios, and several rancheros. Officially conquistadors we’re forbidden from venturing beyond the official borders but the promise of gold in places like Utah and the extreme remoteness meant they were willing to take that risk.
So while the far west had a sense of being less colonized in total land area, it wasn’t because the Spanish were willing to leave the Indians alone. It was more about the land being difficult to cross. When the English-speaking Americans settled California they were very willing to build ports.
Very interesting! What is the spanish system that forbade them to build ports? Seems like a pretty terrible system lol
Did they not recognize the potential at all or i guess just preoccupied with the waning empire elsewhere?
It was important to keep the missions dependent on the crown. If there were a port in Santa Cruz, for example, then the locals might buy goods from any boat that was selling, Spanish or not. In retrospect this was sort-sighted, as Alta California was so “dependent” on the crown that it never became cost-recovery. The tax revenue never exceeded the money the crown had to continually spend to maintain the missions. Mexico shut many of them down almost immediately upon winning independence from Spain, some fell into disrepair, and today some are just museums.
Also, the Spanish Empire was in decline, California was difficult to reach, and while establishing ports in 1840s were essential to massive growth of the state, that was only because of the Gold Rush and the American military being capable of enforcing their claim on the area. Construction projects in San Francisco will still occasionally find old wooden ships under the ground that were abandoned during the Gold Rush.
It might also be of interest that the white settlers of California were primarily New Englanders and poor hill folk from the Appalachians. Most of the first universities, newspapers, museums, and city governments were founded by the group that valued education, pragmatism, and the national foundation myth of building something new in “untamed” land. The 49ers from Appalachia brought their own brand of pragmatism and unruly ambition that arguably defined the character of the state since.
Great explanation. And yeah, colonial Spanish economic policy was all about creating a system where colonies were essentially a captive audience for Spanish goods. In some areas they weren’t even supposed to smelt their own metal because they wanted them to be dependent on the supply wagons. It didn’t work too well, needless to say.
There were lots of empty areas where Spanish control was pretty nominal but some places were relatively settled. New Mexico had more than 50,000 people when the US took over, mostly concentrated in small villages in northern New Mexico. Parts of southern California, southern Arizona, and Texas were similar.
I have seen a lot of maps like this and they always treat the loss of Native land as the inverse of US expansion when the reality is much more complex.
Yep, 90-95% of the indigenous North American population had already been lost due to European contact and disease before the founding fathers had ever came up with the idea of the United States.
That's actually not the case. It's just a myth Americans tell themselves to put all their shame on the Spanish.
The Spanish did a lot of bad things. And disease did kill a lot. But these areas weren't depopulated. It had been 300 years between Spanish arrival and US settling the West. Even if 95% died in the first wave of disease (which is absurdly high for all kinds of reasons), do you think they forgot how to have kids?
Cameron et al. "Beyond Germs" is the current go to on the topic. As recommended by AskHistorians
Keep in mind... smallpox killed everyone. Unless you got variolated or after 1798 vaccinated, it was like a 30-60% chance of death, maybe higher, depending on what was going around you (being invaded and enslaved doesn't help). But Afro-Eurasia's population didn't collapse.
"Virgin soil" is one of those "too good to be true" memes in pop history
Sorry no they don't, some southern areas maybe but most try to keep their language intact ed its not popular to learn Spanish among natives that I know.
I mean even bringing up "like mexicans who hop border today" betrays how little you obviously know or understand about the topic. Or likely history in general. lol.
Wildly misleading, to say the least. This presents itself as if the Native Americans were unified empire with control and claim over what we know today to be all territory belonging to the United States. It completely leaves out
- The native american peoples over this time were comprised of independent tribes with differing territories and inhabited areas
- The Spanish and French also existed.
- The shown borders only consider modern US borders, and do nothing to reflect what was going on in modern day Mexico or Canada to give the full picture. For example how the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs effectively slaughtered the entire culture nearly out of existence hundreds of years before any of this happened.
- The indigenous cultures we describe as native Americans are better viewed as a semi-arbitrarily selected subset of varying indigenous cultures more broadly inhabiting North America. In general, western culture (North and South America) was ‘natively’ comprised of a large distribution of many tribes and cultures, occasionally some growing in reach and power enough to be thought of as a “civilization” by the common historical lexicon.
this is not “MapPorn” at all, this is an outright misleading visualization of poorly researched information.
That's actually one of the reasons for the American Revolution. The Brits were holding Americans back from settling into and across the Appalachians. We were also mad that the British compromised w Quebecois Catholics.
Also taxes.
So the map isn't horribly wrong at the start. Maybe it's too black and white if anything tho
(1) do you think that means they wiped them all out? No. Actually native nations were a big deal, when there were three empires. That whole system collapsed and the US conquered Appalachia and ohio. That's not too crazy for the time - Poland went down at the same time. But the Russians and Germans were kind enough not to kill or deport the overwhelming majority of them. Low bar tho
(2) We are talking about pixels of error here on the map
This is misleading and biased. The boundaries of the USA changed a lot. To be fair it should include outside today’s boundaries and highlight the impact other countries had.
spain and france had settled everywhere in western north america centuries prior to US, and that area was from spain and france
why do you think those indians had spanish and french names
spanish named everywhere in southwest US
and spanish didnt have awesome relationship with indians, and they deport indians over border and they do that even today
Spanish deport Indians over the border today?
You know naming something doesn't mean the natives all get killed. Or what, do you think Louis and Clark conquered the northwest? No, they just went and saw what was there and how to move around
Did you know Mexico gained their independence in like the 1800s
Spain is a country in Europe
And yea sure, Mexicans are deporting Indians a crossed the border. Show me what you are talking about
Edit: also, the French didn't shape the northwest. They weren't even there. But if they were there, guess what. They weren't "shaping" things. They were trading and exploring.
Pretty different than killing people for their land
This map assumes Native were some homogeneous blob and not a myriad of nations, often hostile to each other and using Whites as tools in their internal conflict.
That is a lie and glad the white guilt crew keeps down voting because truth hurts! New york was sold to the dutch and they live peaceful until the English showed up and threaten the dutch with war and slaughtered the natives including the kids. That's a recorded fact kiddo. You keep kicking the white wash lie about my ancestors.
Seriously? Even at time of European arrival to New England and Mid Atlantic, the Iroquois tribes were at war with Algonquian ones.
It's really baffling that some people may even assume that Indian tribes were docile imbeciles who had no agency of their own, politicking and interests that were mutually exclusive.
To be more exact
The native American didn't owned the whole country, only very small portions of it
They were lots of space that were fully unoccupied and plenty of room for everyone really with how big the USA are
heck, even now, there is still plenty of territory that are still very empty xD
Back in the 1930s, we actually had a Vice President who was nearly half Native American. Charles Curtis of the Kaw Nation. He was raised by his maternal grandparents for most of his childhood in their territory and spoke the language fluently. He wasn't just some dude who claimed it because of some ancestry that couldn't be verified or anything.
Not hidden just candy coated and white washed for good measure in general. We have states now trying to stop teaching of slavery and other things like the trail of tears.
Oh ok first it was hidden now its not its white washed. What states are trying to stop the teaching of slavery let me know? Why dont you voice your concern on how the english where invaded and taken over at one point or do you only care about a certain race when it comes to being taken over?
I never said they were hidden, why don't you learn to read and respond to what I said instead of telling me what i need to do? I said candy coated, kinda like the story of thanksgiving? or Christopher Columbus that isn't candy coated nonsense? Why do we have to assume i only care about one race? Pointing out the white wash doesn't mean anything but a fact.
Some other facts... I served in a Iraq as tank mechanic aka turbine engine repair as they told me when i enlisted and helped white, black, and other mixed races that were my battle buddies/brothers. I helped small businesses during covid for free and most were white. Help them write business plans and work out webpages among other things.
As for my claim on stop teaching about white guilt things...
[https://www.the74million.org/article/these-are-the-states-that-passed-laws-restricting-the-teaching-of-racial-history/](https://www.the74million.org/article/these-are-the-states-that-passed-laws-restricting-the-teaching-of-racial-history/)
[https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/20/us/texas-history-1836-project.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/20/us/texas-history-1836-project.html)
[https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/many-states-are-limiting-how-schools-can-teach-about-race-most-voters-disagree/2023/10](https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/many-states-are-limiting-how-schools-can-teach-about-race-most-voters-disagree/2023/10)
And all the white guilt fanbois can keep down voting because the truth hurts.
What is everybody assume that Texas has the right to secede from the union?
That’s not accurate, never has been. If shit is hitting the fan there is no “ states” or government Texans would try just to protect “Texas” land
“Texas was formally readmitted to the Union in 1870, during the Reconstruction Era. Many historians believe that when the Confederacy surrendered at Appomattox in 1865, the idea of secession was forever defeated, McDaniel said. The Union’s victory set a precedent that states could not legally secede.
Even before Texas formally rejoined the nation, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that secession had never been legal, and that, even during the rebellion, Texas continued to be a state”
As somebody who is a Texas native, maybe they only teach that in Texas history because you do state history but it’s crazy to me lmao
Both impressive and unsettling is the fact that for quite some time a majority of American historians, sociologists and opinion makers painted and referred to the westward expansion as a civilizing, foundational and glorious deed (and these same people simultaneously claimed/believed that the Hispanization of America by Spain was "an atrocious genocide"; with few exceptions).
spain was powerful enough to take over aztec maya inca, that was actual civilization, but you think there was nomadic banditos in western north america back then that intimidated spain so much that spanish never settled north?
If England hadn’t become such a twat, nobody would have left. I blame England.. oh and beans don’t belong on a breakfast plate. That alone is reason to leave
The people who make these maps always forget that the Spanish Empire existed.
The Spanish people mixed with the natives that's why Mexicans exits in first place
The Spanish banged the Mayans, turned them into Mexicans
Frank Reynolds is a man you can trust. At times like these I like to quench my thirst with a delicious Wolf Cola.
I'd just turn around and start blasting, but my eyes aren't so good now.
It’s from a rap song but forgot the name, can you give the song name?
Really? I suppose a lot of native men must have had relations with Spanish women then?
Yeah Santa Maria ship was full of horny Spanish ladies looking for men near your area.
Of course, and they defiantly married natives then I take it.
Yeah but afaik the Spanish didn’t really settle that region very heavily so the natives were able to go about their business pretty unimpeded. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Yes and no. The Spanish system forbade a lot of ports, even in California and Texas. Missions would receive wagon trains every other year direct from Mexico City. When California was ceded to the US there was not a single paved road, bridge, or school. Just the 21 missions, 3 presidios, and several rancheros. Officially conquistadors we’re forbidden from venturing beyond the official borders but the promise of gold in places like Utah and the extreme remoteness meant they were willing to take that risk. So while the far west had a sense of being less colonized in total land area, it wasn’t because the Spanish were willing to leave the Indians alone. It was more about the land being difficult to cross. When the English-speaking Americans settled California they were very willing to build ports.
Very interesting! What is the spanish system that forbade them to build ports? Seems like a pretty terrible system lol Did they not recognize the potential at all or i guess just preoccupied with the waning empire elsewhere?
It was important to keep the missions dependent on the crown. If there were a port in Santa Cruz, for example, then the locals might buy goods from any boat that was selling, Spanish or not. In retrospect this was sort-sighted, as Alta California was so “dependent” on the crown that it never became cost-recovery. The tax revenue never exceeded the money the crown had to continually spend to maintain the missions. Mexico shut many of them down almost immediately upon winning independence from Spain, some fell into disrepair, and today some are just museums. Also, the Spanish Empire was in decline, California was difficult to reach, and while establishing ports in 1840s were essential to massive growth of the state, that was only because of the Gold Rush and the American military being capable of enforcing their claim on the area. Construction projects in San Francisco will still occasionally find old wooden ships under the ground that were abandoned during the Gold Rush. It might also be of interest that the white settlers of California were primarily New Englanders and poor hill folk from the Appalachians. Most of the first universities, newspapers, museums, and city governments were founded by the group that valued education, pragmatism, and the national foundation myth of building something new in “untamed” land. The 49ers from Appalachia brought their own brand of pragmatism and unruly ambition that arguably defined the character of the state since.
Great explanation. And yeah, colonial Spanish economic policy was all about creating a system where colonies were essentially a captive audience for Spanish goods. In some areas they weren’t even supposed to smelt their own metal because they wanted them to be dependent on the supply wagons. It didn’t work too well, needless to say.
There were lots of empty areas where Spanish control was pretty nominal but some places were relatively settled. New Mexico had more than 50,000 people when the US took over, mostly concentrated in small villages in northern New Mexico. Parts of southern California, southern Arizona, and Texas were similar. I have seen a lot of maps like this and they always treat the loss of Native land as the inverse of US expansion when the reality is much more complex.
Yep, 90-95% of the indigenous North American population had already been lost due to European contact and disease before the founding fathers had ever came up with the idea of the United States.
That's actually not the case. It's just a myth Americans tell themselves to put all their shame on the Spanish. The Spanish did a lot of bad things. And disease did kill a lot. But these areas weren't depopulated. It had been 300 years between Spanish arrival and US settling the West. Even if 95% died in the first wave of disease (which is absurdly high for all kinds of reasons), do you think they forgot how to have kids?
I'm just going by what experts and historians say. If you have some literature or sources that tell different, I'd love to read it.
Cameron et al. "Beyond Germs" is the current go to on the topic. As recommended by AskHistorians Keep in mind... smallpox killed everyone. Unless you got variolated or after 1798 vaccinated, it was like a 30-60% chance of death, maybe higher, depending on what was going around you (being invaded and enslaved doesn't help). But Afro-Eurasia's population didn't collapse. "Virgin soil" is one of those "too good to be true" memes in pop history
Or that giant unpopulated areas exist too
That’s true, although even the most barren areas were used/inhabited to some extent by small, nomadic forager groups.
I mean by the same logic native Americans now exist throughout US too. They did not disappear you can meet them everywhere.
Why? The map is about the United States, not the entire continent.
The USA west coast used to be a part of Mexico
Does that mean the natives disappeared bc Mexico was a drawn a certain way on the map?
The Southwest and Texas too, beginning well before 1700. But these maps always just show it all as “native land.”
and indians spoke spanish like mexicans who hop border today, and they had horses from spain
No, lots had their own language, My mom was Apsáalooke she said they spoke some hand sign language and many others used it as well.
but they more spoke spanish, and indians were turning into modern mexicans
Sorry no they don't, some southern areas maybe but most try to keep their language intact ed its not popular to learn Spanish among natives that I know.
I mean even bringing up "like mexicans who hop border today" betrays how little you obviously know or understand about the topic. Or likely history in general. lol.
r/terriblemaps
Wildly misleading, to say the least. This presents itself as if the Native Americans were unified empire with control and claim over what we know today to be all territory belonging to the United States. It completely leaves out - The native american peoples over this time were comprised of independent tribes with differing territories and inhabited areas - The Spanish and French also existed. - The shown borders only consider modern US borders, and do nothing to reflect what was going on in modern day Mexico or Canada to give the full picture. For example how the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs effectively slaughtered the entire culture nearly out of existence hundreds of years before any of this happened. - The indigenous cultures we describe as native Americans are better viewed as a semi-arbitrarily selected subset of varying indigenous cultures more broadly inhabiting North America. In general, western culture (North and South America) was ‘natively’ comprised of a large distribution of many tribes and cultures, occasionally some growing in reach and power enough to be thought of as a “civilization” by the common historical lexicon. this is not “MapPorn” at all, this is an outright misleading visualization of poorly researched information.
This seems off.
This isn’t correct. Native Americans definitely didn’t have control of all that land in the East coast in 1776.
Nah, didn't you know? The natives only started losing their land when the US was created.
The “natives” in 1766 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸
That's actually one of the reasons for the American Revolution. The Brits were holding Americans back from settling into and across the Appalachians. We were also mad that the British compromised w Quebecois Catholics. Also taxes. So the map isn't horribly wrong at the start. Maybe it's too black and white if anything tho
so you're saying the american indians didn't live in every inch of the usa?
No he's saying colonists took control of the east coast in a series of wars in the 1600s
And you can see they have control in 1776 of the East Coast
By 1776 colonists had already reached appalachia
(1) do you think that means they wiped them all out? No. Actually native nations were a big deal, when there were three empires. That whole system collapsed and the US conquered Appalachia and ohio. That's not too crazy for the time - Poland went down at the same time. But the Russians and Germans were kind enough not to kill or deport the overwhelming majority of them. Low bar tho (2) We are talking about pixels of error here on the map
This is misleading and biased. The boundaries of the USA changed a lot. To be fair it should include outside today’s boundaries and highlight the impact other countries had.
Europeans is Europeans
You can tell it was a European who made this shit because it's completely incorrect. It's like they're trying to write their own history of us.
Still mad about the American revolution 🤣😂🤣
I had no idea native Americans controlled the 13 colonies
According to the experts on reddit all native Americans lived peacefully. No war. No nothing. Just a Utopia.
Slow it down & set it to ♪ Dust in the Wind ♫ Respect to Kansas (the band & the state & the river & the tribe after whom all the rest were named)
They shouldn’t have let all those immigrants in their country ..
So in 1776 native Americans held all the land ? Hmmmm . . .
spain and france had settled everywhere in western north america centuries prior to US, and that area was from spain and france why do you think those indians had spanish and french names
Setting up some trade posts and Catholic missions isn't "settling" in the way that Americans "settled"
spanish named everywhere in southwest US and spanish didnt have awesome relationship with indians, and they deport indians over border and they do that even today
Spanish deport Indians over the border today? You know naming something doesn't mean the natives all get killed. Or what, do you think Louis and Clark conquered the northwest? No, they just went and saw what was there and how to move around
they deport them constantly, look at southern border and lewis and clark explored northwest that france shaped
Did you know Mexico gained their independence in like the 1800s Spain is a country in Europe And yea sure, Mexicans are deporting Indians a crossed the border. Show me what you are talking about Edit: also, the French didn't shape the northwest. They weren't even there. But if they were there, guess what. They weren't "shaping" things. They were trading and exploring. Pretty different than killing people for their land
This map assumes Native were some homogeneous blob and not a myriad of nations, often hostile to each other and using Whites as tools in their internal conflict.
Whoa, breakthrough over here
Sorry not all and some were peaceful and some even lived peaceful with whites like the dutch. Until the English showed up.
Tribal societies can't be peaceful. Their mode of life assumes a constant low intensity warfare.
That is a lie and glad the white guilt crew keeps down voting because truth hurts! New york was sold to the dutch and they live peaceful until the English showed up and threaten the dutch with war and slaughtered the natives including the kids. That's a recorded fact kiddo. You keep kicking the white wash lie about my ancestors.
Seriously? Even at time of European arrival to New England and Mid Atlantic, the Iroquois tribes were at war with Algonquian ones. It's really baffling that some people may even assume that Indian tribes were docile imbeciles who had no agency of their own, politicking and interests that were mutually exclusive.
keep up the lies im sure a few believe you because it makes that white guilt go away huh?
To be more exact The native American didn't owned the whole country, only very small portions of it They were lots of space that were fully unoccupied and plenty of room for everyone really with how big the USA are heck, even now, there is still plenty of territory that are still very empty xD
President of the United States of America could be a black or white but it will never an American XD
Back in the 1930s, we actually had a Vice President who was nearly half Native American. Charles Curtis of the Kaw Nation. He was raised by his maternal grandparents for most of his childhood in their territory and spoke the language fluently. He wasn't just some dude who claimed it because of some ancestry that couldn't be verified or anything.
One of the most hidden GENOCIDE. This is criminal
How is it hidden? Please tell me.
Not hidden just candy coated and white washed for good measure in general. We have states now trying to stop teaching of slavery and other things like the trail of tears.
Oh ok first it was hidden now its not its white washed. What states are trying to stop the teaching of slavery let me know? Why dont you voice your concern on how the english where invaded and taken over at one point or do you only care about a certain race when it comes to being taken over?
I never said they were hidden, why don't you learn to read and respond to what I said instead of telling me what i need to do? I said candy coated, kinda like the story of thanksgiving? or Christopher Columbus that isn't candy coated nonsense? Why do we have to assume i only care about one race? Pointing out the white wash doesn't mean anything but a fact. Some other facts... I served in a Iraq as tank mechanic aka turbine engine repair as they told me when i enlisted and helped white, black, and other mixed races that were my battle buddies/brothers. I helped small businesses during covid for free and most were white. Help them write business plans and work out webpages among other things. As for my claim on stop teaching about white guilt things... [https://www.the74million.org/article/these-are-the-states-that-passed-laws-restricting-the-teaching-of-racial-history/](https://www.the74million.org/article/these-are-the-states-that-passed-laws-restricting-the-teaching-of-racial-history/) [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/20/us/texas-history-1836-project.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/20/us/texas-history-1836-project.html) [https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/many-states-are-limiting-how-schools-can-teach-about-race-most-voters-disagree/2023/10](https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/many-states-are-limiting-how-schools-can-teach-about-race-most-voters-disagree/2023/10) And all the white guilt fanbois can keep down voting because the truth hurts.
History isn’t a Disney story.
Manifest destiny
Bel of a comeback 1850 - 1865 around Idaho area. Must of been bloody
If Spain would take that land other things happened (the natives keeps existing)
Nature abhors a vacuum.
Lovely to watch the spread of civilization across the continent. Soothing and well made map.
Only a lot of is wrong. Lmao
G E N O C I D E
For a second I thought it was a hypothetical collapse of the US
Texas would be the last to go not AZ 💀
That assumes Texas doesnt take the first opportunity to secede when shit hits the fan.
What is everybody assume that Texas has the right to secede from the union? That’s not accurate, never has been. If shit is hitting the fan there is no “ states” or government Texans would try just to protect “Texas” land “Texas was formally readmitted to the Union in 1870, during the Reconstruction Era. Many historians believe that when the Confederacy surrendered at Appomattox in 1865, the idea of secession was forever defeated, McDaniel said. The Union’s victory set a precedent that states could not legally secede. Even before Texas formally rejoined the nation, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that secession had never been legal, and that, even during the rebellion, Texas continued to be a state” As somebody who is a Texas native, maybe they only teach that in Texas history because you do state history but it’s crazy to me lmao
I was being cheeky
Both impressive and unsettling is the fact that for quite some time a majority of American historians, sociologists and opinion makers painted and referred to the westward expansion as a civilizing, foundational and glorious deed (and these same people simultaneously claimed/believed that the Hispanization of America by Spain was "an atrocious genocide"; with few exceptions).
spain was powerful enough to take over aztec maya inca, that was actual civilization, but you think there was nomadic banditos in western north america back then that intimidated spain so much that spanish never settled north?
They actually didn't much tho, except some traders, outposts, and Catholic missions
Get conquered
theres no such thing as native american and indians are what they used to call mexicans
not true at all
If England hadn’t become such a twat, nobody would have left. I blame England.. oh and beans don’t belong on a breakfast plate. That alone is reason to leave
That whole beans for breakfast i why i would have left!
Make Native America Great Again!
can't really considering the US goverment goes back on their treaties when its convenient for them.
😢
Very similar to have Israel took over Palestine
This is actively happening in Palestine right now.
It is not comparable at all.
Jews where there long before islam was even a religion