North America before illegal immigration

Wow, this map fucking sucks at describing native american regions.
- In the bottom left it shows the current year in the Aztec calendar, presumably cut off and the "current year" in the Gregorian calendar at 2015 AD. I'm 95% sure this is just some guy's alt history map, especially considering how many wack ass names some of these places have
  
  It's definitely an alternate history map, and I hope it's an accurate potential map of an uncolonized North America if it's cultures grew to nation state sizes.
  I'm European so I'm not meaning to offend, but there's something very interesting to me try to visualise how America could have grown without colonisation, and perhaps this is through my European lense but I'd imagine borders would move and groups would swallow eachother up. The scale of countries on this map is pretty comparable to what we see in Europe and Asia, but I don't know enough about America to know if this is respectful to the placement and potential of Native American groups (e.g I think I've read before the the Comanche are a successful seperation from the Shoshone that was largely due to their expansion due to horses, which would have happened very differently sans colonisation), and I'm not even sure if this map follows natural borders like mountains and rivers, largely because I'm just not that familiar with America.
- Could you point me to where I could better learn about these regions then? No offense, I'm just actually curious now.
  
  This one seems most accurate: https://native-land.ca/
  OP's map relies a lot more on Western notions of nations and land ownership than you would have found for many indigenous tribes.
- It does, but it's also like 1000x more info than the average person knows

The First Peoples of North America definitely didn't have such sharp, well defined border lines. It's not as of they had a bunch of written treaties establishing hard borders.
- This is a conceptual alternate history map of modern day North America without colonisation. It's still reasonably inaccurate of course but it's not meant to accurately portray the borders of a pre-colonised North America.
  
  Sioux is a name given by the colonizers. It's not just the borders.
- If they'd endured as independent groups into the 21st century without being colonised by Europeans, as the map shows, they would almost certainly have developed defined borders.
  
  Why? Europe had firm (occasionally changing) boarders for centuries before the sixteenth century, do you think they were simply behind on an inevitable development or that contact with the rest of the world would necessitate their development?
  I think it's interesting to try and imagine situations where firm boarders aren't established. In such a situation it's interesting to consider what rules could or would exist regarding immigration and outsider communities.

Pretty sure North America looked different in 2015 AD.
- Obviously this is 2015 AD meaning as 2015 years After Diogenes which is closer to 1500 CE or Century of Erasmus.

The British Colombia part of the map is very inaccurate. Not sure about the rest. Appreciate the sentiment though.
- Blatant coast Salish erasure!
  
  I was wondering where Coast Salish was hiding.
- Also Sioux isn't a native name, it was given to the Lakota people and others by the French colonizers.
- Same for the North of Mexico
- Haida Gwaii taking up the entire coast and interior yet isn't even in the map gave me a chuckle.

slavey
I'm going out on a limb and say someone else picked that name for them.
- You'd be correct. It's a translation of a name given to them by the Cree. They generally refer to themselves as Dene.

am i missing something or is there no meme?
- I think they are referring to the British settlements that led to modern America..?
- The illegal immigrants in this case would be European settlers and the added text makes the meme, I think. I had to double take on this one as well.
  
  yeah, but i just dont really understand the map. is it just a map showing where the native population lived before colonization or is there an actual joke in there?
- Is this one of those "this is uncomfortably political to me and I don't like that like that, therefore it isn't a wholesome chungus 100 maymay" things?

Reject national identities, return to soft border cultural cliques
- Yeah! Fuck nations, it´s just a social construct anyway.

Huron Supremacy? The Jason Bourne series really went off track after the 3rd movie.

- Which made up genocides would those be?
- To be fair more people died from the diseases brought by the settlers.
  
  Apparently that is false. While disease did kill some, as well as early settlers, the rest was actual murder.
  
  You mean the diseases they intentionally spread as part of their settler colonialist genocide?

😭😭😭

https://i.imgur.com/j7GOV1F.jpeg Not all NA, but some visualization of smaller areas. Not sure why most maps want to throw in modern states when we want to look at indigenous maps.

It's interesting how these lines are still pretty accurate for cultural divisions in colonial NA. At least at at quick glance.

Not before colonization; more like if colonization never happened. These borders are too well-defined, too generalized, too inaccurate, and the names are too western (federation, sovereignty, confederacy, empire, etc.) to be historical borders