*The state was owned by Russia. There were always natives there, but I get your point that they feel somewhat distinct from the typical continental tribes that come to mind when you think Native American.
Oklahoma was "Indian Territory" for a while until the federal government (and American society at large) decided they wanted white settlers there too, and decided that they wanted Indians to "assimilate". During the land runs of the late 1800s and related policies, all tribal authority in Oklahoma was stripped away and a ton of land was opened up for white settling.
Lots of tribes were sent to live there but it's not a reservation, more like a former reservation that was later seen as lebensraum.
People usually don't think of them as indians. Many people count eskimos as a separate group of people since they have a different culture and are separated by a large amount of land.
I'm Metis, Inuit is most definitely considered Native American. Each tribe has cultural differences, some were historically wanderers who followed their migrating food sources, some had more permanent shelters, not all tribes lived in teepees, some lived closer to water thus they fished rather than follow migrating herds. if we didn't we'd all be one big tribe.
They are considered Native Americans but Inuit are a different race than the ones in continental US. They look more closely related to Mongolians or Chinese.
gx: race does not exist in homo sapiens. There are different populations of people in different places, but that's not the same thing. All of the people indigenous to the Americas have ancestors that came from Asia via Alaska over 15,000 years ago.
Second part - that's the dominant hypothesis and may well be true, but is not proven unequivocally. There's some evidence (e.g. linguistic markers) that doesn't fit that idea at this point.
@HydratedMite Prehistoric immigration via Australia, New Guinea and/or Polynesia is another theory that has some traction.
It doesn't have as much widespread support as the Bering Land Bridge hypothesis (although my understanding - not that I'm anything close to an expert - is that the theory here is that there were multiple separate sources of immigration, with the Polynesian route being one of them, and Siberia/Bering being another).
But to answer your question, that is another possibility.
If I remember right, there is genetic evidence for three waves of human migration into the americas, with the first being dominant among the vast majority of indigenous peoples here, the second wave possibly corresponding to Na-Dene cultures, and the third likely involving some of the the ancestors of the Inuit/Aluet/related cultures.
However, it is somewhat of a moot point as each wave of immigration interbred with the previous so that an average Inuit individual has some ancestors who arrived several thousand years later would also have just as many ancestors who arrived with the first wave of immigration into the Americas and are no less indigenous than a culture further south that never interacted with this later immigration wave.
Indigenous People instead of Indian: for the most part that's preferred, yes.
Inuit instead of Eskimo? No, not at all. Inuit and Eskimo refer to two different peoples. One reason why Eskimo is often considered a problem is because it has been ignorantly used by outsiders to refer to all northern people collectively, including the Inuit, which is not correct.
But Eskimo people, as a distinct population from the Inuit, are definitely a thing, and a valid term for them remains Eskimo. Although "Yupik" is probably a better word in many (most?) cases. But the word Yupik aside, Eskimo is preferred over Inuit for those people.
I note that you - like me - are Canadian. Here in Canada, we don't really have any Yupik people, so Inuit is pretty much always correct, and this fact has been drilled into us. But in Alaska, the Yupik dominate among their aboriginal populations, and the word "Inuit" is an outsider word for them, making it just as wrong as "Eskimo" is here.
Worth pointing out that Indian is quite often a perfectly acceptable term as well. There is a tribe near me who call themselves the "Puyallup Tribe of Indians".
A lot of grievance culture was invented by white academics anyway.
Amen. Like most of the "controversy" over using Native American terms in sport team names.The overwhelming majority of actual tribe members support it or have no opinion. One of my best friends in college was the son of the chief of the Creek Nation. His favorite teams were the Cleveland Indians, Golden State Warriors, Chicago Blackhawks. His favorite NFL is the Forty Niners. Not because he thought that Redskins was racist but because he loved Joe Montana.
I don't know... they have a COMPLETELY different history, culture, and lifestyle. Calling them the same is a bit like calling Western Europeans and Eastern Europeans the same
Chiming in that even within indigenous communities there's a lot of debate about what the right word to use is. "Indians" and "Native Americans" are both preferred by different indigenous individuals and are both are despised by some indigenous individuals. "Indigenous" is similar. There is no one "culturally sensitive" word to use, because the words have their own pros and cons and their own histories as words.
Personally, I say "Native American" to refer to all "native" (as in before Europeans and stuff) cultures in the New World, including the Mayans and Incas and Aztecs and stuff.
According to Wikipedia (not the same source as used for this quiz), MN is tied for 16th (with Colorado) at 1.1%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States
I would guess that Hawaiians would fit in genetically more with people from Fiji, Palau, Indonesia, New Zealand and Malaysia than with Native Americans.
Not Malaysia or Indonesia — anthropological evidence suggests that the ancient ancestors of Pacific Islanders probably came from Taiwan or the Philippines.
Not to mention, there are huge differences ethnically between Fijians, Palauans, and Hawaiians. Native Hawaiians are more related to Samoans, Tongans, Māori, etc.
Haha I totally missed that bullet point in the description. I was wondering why Hawaii wasn't there! Guess that might have something to do with it... 😆
Native Hawaiians are actually not related to Native Americans. I get what you're saying — they are the indigenous people of a part of America, but their ancestors came from a much different place than those of Native Americans.
Weird that Native Americans, despite arriving first, chose to settle on some of the most deserted and least fertile lands, with the most hostile climates. I wonder how that happened...
They settled all over the continent. Then after Europeans showed up those people often intermarried and intermingled with Europeans. If they did not, they were often displaced, relocated, or killed off. Some of my ancestors were in both camps. Are you trying to be clever? Also... if you're the first to get to place, isn't *everywhere* you settle going to be deserted?
It's not really sarcasm it's more passive aggressive dissimulation. But anyway, I know. And he's trying to make some point about Native Americans being pushed off their land or something. It's just a weird comment with implications that are not entirely true. I also don't think the nonsensical use of deserted was intentional.
I was a bit surprised about Washington. I would think that the large populations of Seattle and it’s suburbs would outweigh the Native American populations.
That surprised me too. I got it, but it was the last one, and I only really tried it at all because when I got a hit with Oregon, I decided to try all the adjacent states.
But I'm really surprised that Washington is there when Idaho isn't...
After living in Southern Oregon for 30+ years I moved to Sequim, WA. There are 574 federally recognized Tribal Nations, there are 29 in Washington and 9 in Oregon. They each have cultural and historic differences and a rich history beyond our relatively short-lived 'America' history. The eastern state equally had indigenous populations, but they were driven west, eradicated, or absorbed by the European invasion. I go with the Bering Land Bridge Theory for populations spreading east to Canada and then south to the amercias.
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Americans ever done for us?
Somehow Alaskan Natives don't feel somehow native USAmerican, especially since they were Russians first.
Please refer all complaints to the Census Bureau.
For New Mexico with just above 2 million
Lots of tribes were sent to live there but it's not a reservation, more like a former reservation that was later seen as lebensraum.
Second part - that's the dominant hypothesis and may well be true, but is not proven unequivocally. There's some evidence (e.g. linguistic markers) that doesn't fit that idea at this point.
It doesn't have as much widespread support as the Bering Land Bridge hypothesis (although my understanding - not that I'm anything close to an expert - is that the theory here is that there were multiple separate sources of immigration, with the Polynesian route being one of them, and Siberia/Bering being another).
But to answer your question, that is another possibility.
However, it is somewhat of a moot point as each wave of immigration interbred with the previous so that an average Inuit individual has some ancestors who arrived several thousand years later would also have just as many ancestors who arrived with the first wave of immigration into the Americas and are no less indigenous than a culture further south that never interacted with this later immigration wave.
Inuit instead of Eskimo? No, not at all. Inuit and Eskimo refer to two different peoples. One reason why Eskimo is often considered a problem is because it has been ignorantly used by outsiders to refer to all northern people collectively, including the Inuit, which is not correct.
But Eskimo people, as a distinct population from the Inuit, are definitely a thing, and a valid term for them remains Eskimo. Although "Yupik" is probably a better word in many (most?) cases. But the word Yupik aside, Eskimo is preferred over Inuit for those people.
I note that you - like me - are Canadian. Here in Canada, we don't really have any Yupik people, so Inuit is pretty much always correct, and this fact has been drilled into us. But in Alaska, the Yupik dominate among their aboriginal populations, and the word "Inuit" is an outsider word for them, making it just as wrong as "Eskimo" is here.
A lot of grievance culture was invented by white academics anyway.
"Eskimo" really isn't a good word to use, though.
Not to mention, there are huge differences ethnically between Fijians, Palauans, and Hawaiians. Native Hawaiians are more related to Samoans, Tongans, Māori, etc.
But I'm really surprised that Washington is there when Idaho isn't...
https://www.washingtontribes.org/the-tribes-of-washington/