AHC: European hunter-gatheres in the 21th century

I put this thread into "before 1900" because it is likely that it will require a pod before 1900 AD. Allthough it may be possible to get ATL where there are European hunter-gatheres, with a pod after 1900 AD. Still i think the most likely is with a pod before 1900 AD.

Have Europe host hunter-gatheres populations in the 21th century.
 
How big of a population are we talking here?

Also, how strict a definition of "hunter-gatherer"? Do they have to subsist purely by hunting and gathering, or can they do other things as well?

Because freeganism is a thing.
 

Maoistic

Banned
The Sami weren't living anywhere near the primitive lives that Europeans ascribed to them. The Sami are Finns that were subjected to racist segregation by Scandinavian monarchies, which is where this stereotype comes from, but one can clearly see from history that the Sami were living in the same feudal mode of production as their Scandinavian and Russian neighbours.

Also, the term "hunter-gatherer" is clearly just a fancier modern term for what Thomas Hobbes called the "State of Nature", which is something he invented to argue that Native Americans - who had states, had agriculture, even had their own sports, and did such things like create combustion from whale fat and extract oil - didn't have sovereignty, therefore making it okay for the English to keep colonising them. Pretty sure that if the Europeans had been colonised, we would have the non-European colonists (with their equivalent of the term "anthropology") speaking of them as "hunter-gatherer" societies.
 
Maybe you could have some on the northern parts of the outskirts of the Urals, too, if they become a part of a Kiev/Black Sea-focused state that doesn’t heavily colonize the region.

Also, the term "hunter-gatherer" is clearly just a fancier modern term for what Thomas Hobbes called the "State of Nature", which is something he invented to argue that Native Americans - who had states, had agriculture, even had their own sports, and did such things like create combustion from whale fat and extract oil - didn't have sovereignty, therefore making it okay for the English to keep colonising them. Pretty sure that if the Europeans had been colonised, we would have the non-European colonists (with their equivalent of the term "anthropology") speaking of them as "hunter-gatherer" societies.

> be ancient person
> make living by hunting for food and gathering berries and plants
> am hunter-gatherer literally by definition

Your entire statement is pointless because it is built upon the assumption that because a term loosely associated to the one being discussed was used to invalidate Native Americans, then that term must automatically be hostile.

I probably shouldn’t be replying to this like this, but I’m sick of you being antagonistic and bringing in tangential arguments for the sake of it into so many pre-1900 topics.
 
How big of a population are we talking here?
First the population should be capable of reproducing itself. Second, the population should be big enough for inbreeding to not become problematic.
Also, how strict a definition of "hunter-gatherer"? Do they have to subsist purely by hunting and gathering, or can they do other things as well?
I think we can work with different degrees of "hunter-gatherer-ness". I don't want to limit posters by using a strict definition, and therefore i prefer a more loos definition.

1. Population that relies only on hunting and gathering for survival.
2. Population that mostly relies on hunting and gathering for survival.
etc
Because freeganism is a thing.
Good point! :cool::cool::cool:
 
Have a hunter-gatherer group like the Inuit or the Samoyedic peoples reach one of the High Arctic islands like Svalbard or the Franz Josef Land. Although other Europeans will still arrive after them, some of them would still follow traditional lifestyles into the 21st century. Although they may end up like the Greenlanders, who IIRC still follow traditional lifestyles to some degree.
 
Top