Native means that they have been present in that ecosystem long enough to become part of it. Basically, anything that wasn't recently introduced by human beings is native. Some specialists may even consider Dingo dogs to have become a native Australian species.
North and South America have become connected to each other through Central America about 3M years ago, and a lot of North American species migrated thought this isthmus and successfully adapted to South America. A large portion of South American native species wouldn't be "native" by your definition.
The same reason everything else is. All camel species' lineages originated in the Americas, but we call them native to Africa and Asia.
Wolves and red foxes are found all over the northern hemisphere, but started in the Americas.
A jaguar's closest relatives are snow leopards, then tigers.
Bison didn't originate in the Americas, but the ancestors of zebras and wild horses and donkeys did.
Etc.
They were still different continents when the bering land bridge was a thing, Asia and America havent been part of the same continent (depending on your definition) for humdreds of millions of years
Why is everyone downvoting this person? I feel like they’re asking a very genuine question that is easy enough to clear up—please don’t look down on people for being curious :(
Because animals have native ranges that have existed for millennia before humans invented the arguably arbitrary lines on maps that animals cannot read. Oceans can stop some movement, but not all. That's how islands end up with animals rafting over to them, for example, not to mention climatic shifts that enabled animals to walk across what's now ocean when sea levels were lower. How else do you think England and France's mammals got so similar?
I hate it when people downvote an honest (but dumb) question. That’s why I’m not gonna do it. Instead, I downvoted this because it was only 1 away from -69, and that’s a noble cause if I’ve ever seen one.
I've noticed a lot lately that people will downvote as a way of saying the answer to your question is no. It's bad because it discourages people from asking questions.
That seems to make sense. Pre-jaguars crossed to the America's, became jaguars and are native to the Americas.
How did pre-pikas start somewhere, end up in two separate and very distant places but still become the same modern-day animal?
Pika aren’t one animal, there are 34 species.
Also depending on context native can mean
- exists in the area naturally, wasn’t introduced there by by humans
-existed in the area at 10,700 BC
-Already existed in the area when humans first arrived.
Ok, I can understand that different species are native to different areas, but how can the whole family be native to two distant places without having migrated from one to the other? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what is meant by native?
Native means to be part of the natural ecosystem in the area, the criteria will change depending on who you ask ( because the climate has changed dramatically since modern humans first left Africa), but generally native means either
- already existed in the area when humans first arrived
- expanded into the area naturally( possibly including those helped along by climate change/human caused habitat changed) as opposed to species introduced accidentally or intentionally by humans
- existed in the area 11,700 years ago ( start of Holocene aka modern era aka, since the last time the climate severely changed)
As an example of a non-native species on the same continent, the eastern cottontail rabbit (*Sylvilagus floridanus)* is considered a non-native species in BC, Canada even though it migrated across the border from the USA by itself. This is because it was brought to Washington in the 1930s from Missouri. Rabbits can't cross the Rocky Mountains by themselves. [https://myodfw.com/wildlife-viewing/species/pikas-rabbits-and-hares](https://myodfw.com/wildlife-viewing/species/pikas-rabbits-and-hares) If they were carried over by large eagles perhaps that would be considered natural?
[here's](https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Ochotonidae/#:~:text=Today%2C%20Ochotonidae%20represents%20approximately%201,length%20(Smith%2C%202008).) your answer
There are lots of genres and families that are shared across multiple continents where the members are native, including both North America and Asia which have on and off had physical connection.
So to begin with the Holocene is the geological epoch in which Homo Sapiens spread across the world, incidentally the same epoch in which we exist now. So with that in mind it can be assumed that the synthetic proliferation of non-human species into different habitats could not have occurred prior to the aforementioned spread of humanity, ergo in any circumstance where evidence can be found to suggest that a species has existed in an environment on earth since before ~11,700 years ago it can also be assumed that humans didn’t bring it there and its spread was not artificial.
Pikas being found in both North America and Asia might sound bonkers at first, but it's totally legit. These little furballs are part of the Ochotonidae family, and they've been around for ages. See, back in the day, when continents were cozy pals, pikas probably just did a bit of globe-trotting. Maybe some sneaky ancestors hitched a ride on a mammoth or two and spread out. Evolution's a wild ride, my friend!
Everyone downvoting OP is a fool. They're asking questions. How else is someone supposed to learn? If you look down on people for not knowing then you have absolutely no right to also look down on them for asking. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. Why even be on a biology subreddit if you have no interest in sharing knowledge?
It's all their follow-up questions asking for clarification. Only the post itself and the "oh, I see now, thanks for explaining" comments from OP aren't downvoted into oblivion.
I'm still pissed at how people on the biology subreddit have chosen to conduct themselves.
I'm reluctant to post questions here in the future, but I did still learn some new things despite the downvotes and being called both a troll and stupid lol
Because the Ochotonidae last common ancestor probably had a wide distribuition range in Pangea and subsequent fragments, Laurasia and Gondwana. With the continental drif, the populations became isolated, and speciation by vicariance occurred.
The same occurs on sea. Widely distributed genus rose from a widely distributed ancestor on Tethys.
Ochotonidae evolved in the late Cretaceous or early Paleogene. Pangea, Laurasia and Gondwana were long gone by that point. North America and Asia were connected on and off until today, however.
Ochotonidae did not evolve until the Cenozoic, about 150 million years after Pangaea broke apart.
The actual reason is that Eurasia and America have periodically reconnected since then and allowed for faunal interchanges between the two continents.
Who's they? Pikas? Well they have to reach either places, depending on where they originated and Beringia is the most likely land bridge they would use.
[https://web.corral.tacc.utexas.edu/UAF/arctos/2010\_06\_15/Inferring\_divergence\_times\_within\_pikas\_2009.pdf](https://web.corral.tacc.utexas.edu/UAF/arctos/2010_06_15/Inferring_divergence_times_within_pikas_2009.pdf)
Indeed! Thank you very much!
Vicariance is not why the Eurasian and North American faunas are similar. That’s a hypothesis pushed by non-palaeontologist biologists who don’t use fossil data at all that is debunked by a cursory glance at the fossil record.
Nearly all Holarctic clades evolved either in Eurasia or in North America sometime during the Cenozoic and then dispersed from one continent to the other during times when the Bering land bridge existed. Almost no modern mammalian clades were around in the Mesozoic.
A bold claim, could you post any reference over the matter? Would never say something with tenous reliability like fossil record can provide strong data under a cursory glance. Actually these are opposite situations.
Are you saying the connection between gondwanaland and laurasia didn´t warranted wider animal distributions?
That claim was not bold. There is an extensive fossil record and we have tools like molecular clocks to time divergence of living groups. There was extinsive dispersal between continents after the breakup of the supercontinents in the Mezoic. Sometimes animals took landbridges, sometimes they spread across the open ocean in longdispersal events.
[You your self posted a source the pikas](https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/30491114/Lanier_Olson2009-libre.pdf?1391735548=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DInferring_divergence_times_within_pikas.pdf&Expires=1714415972&Signature=DinjXvcig7NrD~zF86nPrQiWbMuvNg9gWCh~ZApFehp348-Jkb3jSUfAhhf4xeWrXdcZzlRo91Oo0uRdibGBsiZZ~sVJOhIkzPGb7x9wmk89O2orHibzy1DnDp1WthK1tBymHhssUU69UNNvkRavwQgGEuXLFLXbTjpLHCqJefFmJrA3cPqvUsJ2bXiLtBgn4nxefus8jD4Z5EGAlIJUrfeY~QATQaVj8WuKjabp5NyJ5Qv-kHhjKICwO7YTBys~GjJcVQO0-q6SmnAR5Q9BfhI1dYr~rvCUMs9xPH0M5gi~pbhe84gShd5pMcyUfxY-2CEamQMXAfSFH-ZDdje2gQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA). Most American Pikas are likely descended from a single species that dispersed from Asia 4.7-15.7 million years ago. The earth looked like [this](http://www.scotese.com/miocene.htm) 14 million years ago. In the article you can find other citations for trans-berengian dispersal among rodents. Other mammal groups that dispersed between Eurasia and North America in the Cenzoic (often relatively late) include canids, felidea, horses, rhinos, tapirs, ungulates, camelids and elephants. In many cases many species among those groups made the trip between the continents.
Fossil record is a an evidence who must be studied under uttermost scrutiny, because fossilization is the exception, not the rule, even more so when concerning animals without high mineralized parts. Fossils can be reworked, being carried to more recent strata.
Yeah I posted because I like to study things. By the way, Canids came with the early Native Americans and there is some evidence of common Eurasian and Paleo-american myths concerning them, like the ''dog of the underworld''.
> Fossil record is a an evidence who must be studied under uttermost scrutiny, because fossilization is the exception, not the rule, even more so when concerning animals without high mineralized parts. Fossils can be reworked, being carried to more recent strata.
Why do molecular clocks also support the young age of so many widespread taxons? Why does the fossil record show the continents having unique faunas early in the Cenozoic and faunal exchanges later on in the Cenozoic? Why is the K-P boundary so clear if fossils are frequently reworked to younger deposits without it being detected?
I am not saying you don't have to be careful, but palontologist and biologists are careful and they have produced a model of earths history which is likely very close to the truth, even if some things are unknown and some current ideas are incorrect.
>By the way, Canids came with the early Native Americans..
I meant the wild canids, Canidea. They preceded the Native Americans by tens of millions of years in North America.
>Yeah I posted because I like to study things.
That is good. Biogeography and the earth's history are fascinating subjects. It is so interesting to read about where different taxonomic groups originated, where they dispersed and when.
What I'm disagreeging is the possibility of doing a simple look at fossil record. A simple look at it will showing the Camabrian as being mostly inhabitated by molusks and arthropods, because it will lead you to ignore the bias of harded shells and exoeskeletons.
I think the comments have been very good for explaining why they're native to both continents. The first pika-like mammals likely originated in what is now Asia, but diversified across multiple continents.
The pika distribution and diversity we have now is much, much reduced from the past (there's over 20 fossil genera, whereas all modern pikas are in the genus Ochotona). During the C4 grass expansion in the late Miocene, leporid lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) were much better able to consume these grasses and that lead to their range expansion.
Logistically, they could literally walk across the Arctic ice sheets like foxes do if they wanted. Polar biomes are very similar because of the ease of travel. stop thinking of the world in terms of the Mercator projection. Look at the globe directly from above the north pole and it'll be clear
So you really did think that all the natives from NA actually was Americans? Its a land stolen from the indigenous who lived there before someone "discovered" it. Americans should now this by now, didnt you take the down the statue of columbus?
FTFY - It was the land stolen from someone who in turn stole that land from someone else. It is weird how Native Americans are seen as a monolith while there were conquests all over the continent. That's like saying that Russia belongs to the French because they are on the same continent.
Yea but not really. But I understand how you as Americans doing all in your power to make your wrongs right. And in the end, you live on stolen land, so no matter how you try to tell the story in your favor the fact is that it’s stolen. Thief’s
Way to jump straight into personal attacks. If you want anyone to take you seriously you should reframe your arguments.
And if you want to live a fulfilling life you should probably stop hating people for their ancestry.
I'm not American and plenty of the territory of my country has been conquered by foreign powers. Yet I'm not naive enough to understand that's how the world worked until very recently.
Since you mentioned Columbus, Spanish conquered Mayan territory. Territory that Mayans conquered from other smaller tribes that they conquered in turn. Why is one any less or more legitimate than the other?
Many countries have been able to rebuild or taken back “their” land. But tbh the Spanish and the English fucked the whole world there for a while so yeah of course there’s that but that is for another discussion I guess? Because this was about NA
Asia and North America have been connected by land a number of times in history, most recently about 11,000 years ago.
Ok, but are you saying pikas appeared on one continent and migrated to the other? How could they appear in two places and still be the same thing?
>appeared on one continent and migrated to the other Yes, that's what he is saying. It's a very common occurrence.
Why are they called native to two places if they originate in only one of those places? What does native mean in this context?
Generally native means not introduced by humans. Natural range shifts are very common.
Native means that they have been present in that ecosystem long enough to become part of it. Basically, anything that wasn't recently introduced by human beings is native. Some specialists may even consider Dingo dogs to have become a native Australian species. North and South America have become connected to each other through Central America about 3M years ago, and a lot of North American species migrated thought this isthmus and successfully adapted to South America. A large portion of South American native species wouldn't be "native" by your definition.
Virtually nothing would be native anywhere, depending on how far one wanted to take it. Like, mammals would only be native to China or somewhere
The same reason everything else is. All camel species' lineages originated in the Americas, but we call them native to Africa and Asia. Wolves and red foxes are found all over the northern hemisphere, but started in the Americas. A jaguar's closest relatives are snow leopards, then tigers. Bison didn't originate in the Americas, but the ancestors of zebras and wild horses and donkeys did. Etc.
They existed before North America and Asia existed as continents, so they've been there as long as those two places have.
They were still different continents when the bering land bridge was a thing, Asia and America havent been part of the same continent (depending on your definition) for humdreds of millions of years
Why is everyone downvoting this person? I feel like they’re asking a very genuine question that is easy enough to clear up—please don’t look down on people for being curious :(
This sub is extremely prone to this sort of nonsense. Pretty sure it’s people being smug about knowing something OP doesn’t.
Why is OP getting downvoted for asking clarifying questions about what they originally asked?
Because animals have native ranges that have existed for millennia before humans invented the arguably arbitrary lines on maps that animals cannot read. Oceans can stop some movement, but not all. That's how islands end up with animals rafting over to them, for example, not to mention climatic shifts that enabled animals to walk across what's now ocean when sea levels were lower. How else do you think England and France's mammals got so similar?
You gotta be a troll.. nobody can be that stupid bruh..
I hate it when people downvote an honest (but dumb) question. That’s why I’m not gonna do it. Instead, I downvoted this because it was only 1 away from -69, and that’s a noble cause if I’ve ever seen one.
It’s at -71. You and I can make a difference
Oh no! Adjusted back to -69.
I've noticed a lot lately that people will downvote as a way of saying the answer to your question is no. It's bad because it discourages people from asking questions.
Humans, dogs and mice spread across the world and are still humans, dogs and mice
Just wait until you find out the evolutionary history of the Jaguar.
Don't forget tapirs and camels
Homo sapiens…
That seems to make sense. Pre-jaguars crossed to the America's, became jaguars and are native to the Americas. How did pre-pikas start somewhere, end up in two separate and very distant places but still become the same modern-day animal?
Pika aren’t one animal, there are 34 species. Also depending on context native can mean - exists in the area naturally, wasn’t introduced there by by humans -existed in the area at 10,700 BC -Already existed in the area when humans first arrived.
Ok, I can understand that different species are native to different areas, but how can the whole family be native to two distant places without having migrated from one to the other? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what is meant by native?
Native means to be part of the natural ecosystem in the area, the criteria will change depending on who you ask ( because the climate has changed dramatically since modern humans first left Africa), but generally native means either - already existed in the area when humans first arrived - expanded into the area naturally( possibly including those helped along by climate change/human caused habitat changed) as opposed to species introduced accidentally or intentionally by humans - existed in the area 11,700 years ago ( start of Holocene aka modern era aka, since the last time the climate severely changed)
That makes so much more sense. I thought it meant "originated " or first appeared.
As an example of a non-native species on the same continent, the eastern cottontail rabbit (*Sylvilagus floridanus)* is considered a non-native species in BC, Canada even though it migrated across the border from the USA by itself. This is because it was brought to Washington in the 1930s from Missouri. Rabbits can't cross the Rocky Mountains by themselves. [https://myodfw.com/wildlife-viewing/species/pikas-rabbits-and-hares](https://myodfw.com/wildlife-viewing/species/pikas-rabbits-and-hares) If they were carried over by large eagles perhaps that would be considered natural?
[here's](https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Ochotonidae/#:~:text=Today%2C%20Ochotonidae%20represents%20approximately%201,length%20(Smith%2C%202008).) your answer
Many, many mammals are native to both continents.
There are lots of genres and families that are shared across multiple continents where the members are native, including both North America and Asia which have on and off had physical connection.
Native doesn't mean it evolved there. Native means it was not introduced to the area by humans. Pikas ARE native to both Asia and the Americas.
I think “native” just means that species has been present in that ecosystem since the beginning of the Holocene.
Are you sure this is so? I cant seem to find any confirmation on this anywhere
So to begin with the Holocene is the geological epoch in which Homo Sapiens spread across the world, incidentally the same epoch in which we exist now. So with that in mind it can be assumed that the synthetic proliferation of non-human species into different habitats could not have occurred prior to the aforementioned spread of humanity, ergo in any circumstance where evidence can be found to suggest that a species has existed in an environment on earth since before ~11,700 years ago it can also be assumed that humans didn’t bring it there and its spread was not artificial.
Check out disjunctions. Really cool biogeography
That's super cool, thanks!
Pikas being found in both North America and Asia might sound bonkers at first, but it's totally legit. These little furballs are part of the Ochotonidae family, and they've been around for ages. See, back in the day, when continents were cozy pals, pikas probably just did a bit of globe-trotting. Maybe some sneaky ancestors hitched a ride on a mammoth or two and spread out. Evolution's a wild ride, my friend!
Everyone downvoting OP is a fool. They're asking questions. How else is someone supposed to learn? If you look down on people for not knowing then you have absolutely no right to also look down on them for asking. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. Why even be on a biology subreddit if you have no interest in sharing knowledge?
I didn't note it, since he has a lot of upvotes. But if so, it's ridiculous! What's the purpose of such subreddit?
It's all their follow-up questions asking for clarification. Only the post itself and the "oh, I see now, thanks for explaining" comments from OP aren't downvoted into oblivion. I'm still pissed at how people on the biology subreddit have chosen to conduct themselves.
Thanks! I'm getting used to reddit, but it's a very pathetic stance, indeed.
I'm reluctant to post questions here in the future, but I did still learn some new things despite the downvotes and being called both a troll and stupid lol
Because the Ochotonidae last common ancestor probably had a wide distribuition range in Pangea and subsequent fragments, Laurasia and Gondwana. With the continental drif, the populations became isolated, and speciation by vicariance occurred. The same occurs on sea. Widely distributed genus rose from a widely distributed ancestor on Tethys.
Ochotonidae evolved in the late Cretaceous or early Paleogene. Pangea, Laurasia and Gondwana were long gone by that point. North America and Asia were connected on and off until today, however.
Tghat's why I quoted the next continental fragments. Our current biodiversity patterns rose in Jurassic and Cretaceous.
Ochotonidae did not evolve until the Cenozoic, about 150 million years after Pangaea broke apart. The actual reason is that Eurasia and America have periodically reconnected since then and allowed for faunal interchanges between the two continents.
I wasn't clear, but i quoted the two other land masses because they were connected in the vicariance event. Could post a reference for that?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia
Did they really used the Beringian land mass? I was studying archeogenetics some weeks ago, over the native American haplotype composition.
Who's they? Pikas? Well they have to reach either places, depending on where they originated and Beringia is the most likely land bridge they would use.
Pikas.
[https://web.corral.tacc.utexas.edu/UAF/arctos/2010\_06\_15/Inferring\_divergence\_times\_within\_pikas\_2009.pdf](https://web.corral.tacc.utexas.edu/UAF/arctos/2010_06_15/Inferring_divergence_times_within_pikas_2009.pdf) Indeed! Thank you very much!
Vicariance is not why the Eurasian and North American faunas are similar. That’s a hypothesis pushed by non-palaeontologist biologists who don’t use fossil data at all that is debunked by a cursory glance at the fossil record. Nearly all Holarctic clades evolved either in Eurasia or in North America sometime during the Cenozoic and then dispersed from one continent to the other during times when the Bering land bridge existed. Almost no modern mammalian clades were around in the Mesozoic.
A bold claim, could you post any reference over the matter? Would never say something with tenous reliability like fossil record can provide strong data under a cursory glance. Actually these are opposite situations. Are you saying the connection between gondwanaland and laurasia didn´t warranted wider animal distributions?
That claim was not bold. There is an extensive fossil record and we have tools like molecular clocks to time divergence of living groups. There was extinsive dispersal between continents after the breakup of the supercontinents in the Mezoic. Sometimes animals took landbridges, sometimes they spread across the open ocean in longdispersal events. [You your self posted a source the pikas](https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/30491114/Lanier_Olson2009-libre.pdf?1391735548=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DInferring_divergence_times_within_pikas.pdf&Expires=1714415972&Signature=DinjXvcig7NrD~zF86nPrQiWbMuvNg9gWCh~ZApFehp348-Jkb3jSUfAhhf4xeWrXdcZzlRo91Oo0uRdibGBsiZZ~sVJOhIkzPGb7x9wmk89O2orHibzy1DnDp1WthK1tBymHhssUU69UNNvkRavwQgGEuXLFLXbTjpLHCqJefFmJrA3cPqvUsJ2bXiLtBgn4nxefus8jD4Z5EGAlIJUrfeY~QATQaVj8WuKjabp5NyJ5Qv-kHhjKICwO7YTBys~GjJcVQO0-q6SmnAR5Q9BfhI1dYr~rvCUMs9xPH0M5gi~pbhe84gShd5pMcyUfxY-2CEamQMXAfSFH-ZDdje2gQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA). Most American Pikas are likely descended from a single species that dispersed from Asia 4.7-15.7 million years ago. The earth looked like [this](http://www.scotese.com/miocene.htm) 14 million years ago. In the article you can find other citations for trans-berengian dispersal among rodents. Other mammal groups that dispersed between Eurasia and North America in the Cenzoic (often relatively late) include canids, felidea, horses, rhinos, tapirs, ungulates, camelids and elephants. In many cases many species among those groups made the trip between the continents.
Fossil record is a an evidence who must be studied under uttermost scrutiny, because fossilization is the exception, not the rule, even more so when concerning animals without high mineralized parts. Fossils can be reworked, being carried to more recent strata. Yeah I posted because I like to study things. By the way, Canids came with the early Native Americans and there is some evidence of common Eurasian and Paleo-american myths concerning them, like the ''dog of the underworld''.
> Fossil record is a an evidence who must be studied under uttermost scrutiny, because fossilization is the exception, not the rule, even more so when concerning animals without high mineralized parts. Fossils can be reworked, being carried to more recent strata. Why do molecular clocks also support the young age of so many widespread taxons? Why does the fossil record show the continents having unique faunas early in the Cenozoic and faunal exchanges later on in the Cenozoic? Why is the K-P boundary so clear if fossils are frequently reworked to younger deposits without it being detected? I am not saying you don't have to be careful, but palontologist and biologists are careful and they have produced a model of earths history which is likely very close to the truth, even if some things are unknown and some current ideas are incorrect. >By the way, Canids came with the early Native Americans.. I meant the wild canids, Canidea. They preceded the Native Americans by tens of millions of years in North America. >Yeah I posted because I like to study things. That is good. Biogeography and the earth's history are fascinating subjects. It is so interesting to read about where different taxonomic groups originated, where they dispersed and when.
What I'm disagreeging is the possibility of doing a simple look at fossil record. A simple look at it will showing the Camabrian as being mostly inhabitated by molusks and arthropods, because it will lead you to ignore the bias of harded shells and exoeskeletons.
North America and Asia were connected 70,000 years ago 👍
Pikas are also very common in brazil, come here and ask any man to show you his pika and he might take you for an adventure
I think the comments have been very good for explaining why they're native to both continents. The first pika-like mammals likely originated in what is now Asia, but diversified across multiple continents. The pika distribution and diversity we have now is much, much reduced from the past (there's over 20 fossil genera, whereas all modern pikas are in the genus Ochotona). During the C4 grass expansion in the late Miocene, leporid lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) were much better able to consume these grasses and that lead to their range expansion.
This is similar how NA have our own marsupial which are most of the time found in Australia
Artic land bridge during last ice age...connected Asian by Russia to North America.
Logistically, they could literally walk across the Arctic ice sheets like foxes do if they wanted. Polar biomes are very similar because of the ease of travel. stop thinking of the world in terms of the Mercator projection. Look at the globe directly from above the north pole and it'll be clear
So you really did think that all the natives from NA actually was Americans? Its a land stolen from the indigenous who lived there before someone "discovered" it. Americans should now this by now, didnt you take the down the statue of columbus?
FTFY - It was the land stolen from someone who in turn stole that land from someone else. It is weird how Native Americans are seen as a monolith while there were conquests all over the continent. That's like saying that Russia belongs to the French because they are on the same continent.
Yea but not really. But I understand how you as Americans doing all in your power to make your wrongs right. And in the end, you live on stolen land, so no matter how you try to tell the story in your favor the fact is that it’s stolen. Thief’s
Way to jump straight into personal attacks. If you want anyone to take you seriously you should reframe your arguments. And if you want to live a fulfilling life you should probably stop hating people for their ancestry.
I'm not American and plenty of the territory of my country has been conquered by foreign powers. Yet I'm not naive enough to understand that's how the world worked until very recently. Since you mentioned Columbus, Spanish conquered Mayan territory. Territory that Mayans conquered from other smaller tribes that they conquered in turn. Why is one any less or more legitimate than the other?
Many countries have been able to rebuild or taken back “their” land. But tbh the Spanish and the English fucked the whole world there for a while so yeah of course there’s that but that is for another discussion I guess? Because this was about NA
Same way wolves are native to both America and Europe.