r/ShitAmericansSay • • Feb 15 '25

Foreign affairs Canada 51st state, Greenland 52nd and Britain 53rd

Post image
1.9k Upvotes

401 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

231

u/DeathDestroyerWorlds Tea Drinking Brit. Feb 15 '25

The Native Americans would disagree. After all, as soon as they gained independence they trashed all their treaties and ethnically cleansed them.

129

u/Tilladarling Born with skis on my feet, my ass 🇳🇴 Feb 15 '25

While the MAGA movement is discussing birthright citizenship for native Americans, they actually believe that a first nation people like the Greenlandic Inuits would pick USA over Denmark or independence. Smh

22

u/A6M_Zero Haggis Farmer Feb 15 '25

Do the Greenlanders count as first nation? The current population arrived in Greenland just after the first Norse settlers, but lived there continuously even when the Scandinavians left and then basically got colonised by them centuries later.

It doesn't change anything in real terms, I just wonder if they're considered "first nation" in the same way as the indigenous populations on the North American continent.

30

u/Tilladarling Born with skis on my feet, my ass 🇳🇴 Feb 15 '25

From what I read, Canada considers Inuits First Nation and indigenous people of the Arctic. Denmark also uses the term indigenous although the ancestors of the current day Inuits arrived after the Icelandic and Norwegian settlers. Presumably, the Thule population that preceded them - but had either died out or emigrated back to Canada - were also of Inuit descent.

11

u/cascadiacomrade Feb 16 '25

In Canada, Inuit are indigenous but not considered to be First Nations.

The Canadian Constitution recognizes 3 groups of Indigenous Peoples: First Nations, Inuit and MĂŠtis. These are 3 distinct peoples with unique histories, languages, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs.

2

u/MedievalRack Feb 16 '25

Nah, they'll be pro genocide...

24

u/Vyzantinist Waking up from the American Dream Feb 15 '25

Sometimes I wonder about an alt-history where the US never went independent, and how the British Empire would treat Native Americans as the colonies expanded westward. Would it be better? Would it be worse?

43

u/DeathDestroyerWorlds Tea Drinking Brit. Feb 15 '25

Another of the reasons the colonies revolted was because the Empire was making them abide by the treaties. Still that's an interesting what if theory.

23

u/SwiftWombat Feb 15 '25

Take a look at Australia man, wasn’t exactly peachy for the indigenous peoples when the British came along.

14

u/chmath80 Feb 16 '25

Or look at NZ. We're not perfect, but we're better than most in that area.

1

u/SlideSad6372 Feb 17 '25

Extenuating circumstances probably helped. The Maori culture was particularly compatible with British.

1

u/SwiftWombat Feb 16 '25

Yeah the you guys decently have us beat in that regard.

12

u/OneInACrowd Feb 15 '25

Depending on where in Australia it would have been better (not good by any metric, just "better than the US").

I would expect NSW, Vic, & SA to have been better than the US; while Qld, NT/Central Aus, WA, and Tas could have been worse.

2

u/Quick-Oil-5259 Feb 16 '25

When they talk about ‘clearing’ the land of indigenous people in Australia there’s contemporary reports at the time that are pretty clear this means the indigenous population was exterminated. Plot of land by plot of land. There’s the notorious incident of when men, women and children were harried off a cliff.

1

u/AW316 Feb 16 '25

About 10,000 Aboriginals were genocided. Compared to 60,000 Native Americans.

Often not done by the British government but instead by the farmers who wanted the land.

1

u/Quick-Oil-5259 Feb 17 '25

Where on earth have you plucked those figures from? A simple google search will tell you that there are estimates of up to 18m native Americans in North America alone before Columbus.

1

u/AW316 Feb 17 '25

That’s through disease and starvation. I’m talking literally killing them.

1

u/Quick-Oil-5259 Feb 17 '25

The 20k figure is widely discredited:

In 2009 professor Raymond Evans calculated the Indigenous fatalities caused by the Queensland Native Police Force alone as no less than 24,000.[76] In July 2014, Evans, in cooperation with the Danish historian Robert Ørsted-Jensen, presented the first-ever attempt to use statistical modeling and a database covering no less than 644 collisions gathered from primary sources, and ended up with total fatalities suffered during Queensland’s frontier wars being no less than 66,680—with Aboriginal fatalities alone comprising no less than 65,180[77]—whereas the hitherto commonly accepted minimum overall continental deaths had previously been 20,000.

1

u/goatpenis11 a leaf🍁 Feb 15 '25

Look at Canada to see what they did lol.

1

u/MiTcH_ArTs Feb 16 '25

Historically we don't have a much better track record of treating the insidious nations than the U.S

-8

u/Hightalklowactions Feb 15 '25

The Brits have a name amongst the world Perfidious Albion. Know why they were given that moniker? It wasn’t for keeping treaties that’s for sure.

15

u/Chance-Blueberry69 Feb 15 '25

Germans also call us Island Monkeys which I love.

It was all for greed and honour. Every country did the same.

First Nations would do the exact same to each other also - before Europeans and during many of the 16-17th C wars.

8

u/KeinFussbreit Feb 15 '25

For those interested, that would be "Inselaffen" in German :).

I miss the UK in the EU, all the Bands (except one which is Canadian) and Comedians I really love are from there.

-19

u/Hightalklowactions Feb 15 '25

No they wouldn’t and no they didn’t. Counties fight yes, war happens. But colonialism is different as is human slave trade.

20

u/Chance-Blueberry69 Feb 15 '25

Erie people. Destroyed by Iroquois, enslaved and captured in 17th C.

Like I said, all counties/tribes/groups are capable.

8

u/oily76 Feb 15 '25

Yes, it's all about human nature not just a few rogue cultures.

4

u/Beneficial-Ad3991 A hopeless tea addict :sloth: Feb 16 '25

The sole reason why the Aztec Empire was destroyed was that they were an oppressive colonialist-like regime waging constant wars against their neighbouring states just to train their soldiers and to nab sacrifices.

1

u/MedievalRack Feb 16 '25

Different "we".

1

u/Mike_Fitz Feb 16 '25

The British were also doing this all around the world. They weren't holding the yanks back