Talk:Historical regions of the United States

message: :::GenQuest, I am confused. As I read the article, there are numerous governmental entities that are/were unrelated to the US or "its ancestral governmental entities" listed. Examples include:
:::* Acadia under New England
:::* La Florida under Southern
:::* Tejas under Far West
:::* Kingdom of Hawaii under Independent entities later joined to the Union
:::The first three were the cession, etc. of provinces of foreign powers. The last one, especially, denotes the annexation of an Indigenous country (as its article says: "Hawaiʻi was briefly an independent republic until the U.S. annexed it through the Newlands Resolution on July 4, 1898...").
::::::Quick answer: Acadia, La Florida, Tejas were all governmental entities that were pre-cursers to the governments (if at least part of their territory became part of the US, they are 'ancestral governmental entities.') These were colonial groupings that actually had recognized central governments and defined boundaries with their neighbors. Kingdom of Hawaii was indeed it's own country, with a monarch and defined territory that they claimed as owners.  The US took it by force (through a coup d'état), as happened to Tejas and parts of Acadia. GenQuest "scribble"
:::Now, let's talk about Indigenous countries. The Kingdom, and later Republic, of Hawai'i is uncontestedly 100% an Indigenous country. Let's turn to the Haudenosaunee, who maintain the use of a[n albeit contested] passport to this day. Their country may not have been a nation-state in the way we understand them in our world right now, but a country ≠ a nation-state. Examples of non-nation-state countries include Scotland, Basque Country, Kurdistan, Silesia, Tibet, and Yorubaland. The article on country expressly states that it does not necessarily conform to the ~192 nations-states in the world today, giving Wales and the aforementioned Basque Country as examples.
::::::Quick answer: First off, there were no Indigenous "countries" in what was to become the continental United States. (If you have non-revisionist, reliable sources for this, please present them here). The Iroquois tribes and allies were specifically a loose confederation of seperate tribes. Just like the Cherokee and others, they only had a "King," "Emperor," Headman," etc. when British colonial and or American state or federal governmental entities sought to create treaties to gain their land. The process was simple: they would unilaterally appoint a tribal leader in such a case to represent the whole peoples (and often bribe them as well) to gain their lands. These 'leaders' would be appointed by those who would gain the most from the signing of each treaty. The British, and then American, governments often referred to these straw-leaders by these made-up titles, and their (non-united) tribes as 'nations', while they were anything but.  In fact, they could only represent small parts or single tribes of the whole.  It was expediently done to add a phoney legitimacy to these unfair treaties, and the indigenious appointees sometimes used these titles as bragging rights, but there was no true authority within the tribes. 
::::::The Indians did not claim or own land, and thought the whole idea was strange and repulsive. Owning land and/or territory in this manner was not the Native American way until the very last of the 18th-century (after the 1794 founding of the Cherokee Nation.  These treaties and unsanctioned land cessions caused several civil wars within the Indian diaspora of the 18th and 19th centuries. Also, no tribes ever elected a national leader (one uniting all tribes under a single individual) until the Cherokee in 1794.  The other followed suit afterward to maintain a fighting chance and negotiating position with the federal government.  Those that didn't are basically gone. GenQuest "scribble"
:::So, why is the cession or annexation of one foreign power's province (e.g., Acadia of France or Spanish Florida) any different than another foreign power's, in this case, districts, e.g., Gespe'gewa'gi of Mi'kma'ki? How is the annexation, through the rupturing of a treaty, from the Western Shoshone foreign power of their country Newe Segobia any different? Additionally, Numunuu Comancheria is cited as an empire? Does an empire not a country make? –– Danachos (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of these were considered countries or empires. GenQuest "scribble" 01:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: arbitrary break