That GFC study contradicts the many studies using both older datasets and newer datasets:
CAS: https://english.cas.cn/newsroom/mutimedia_news/202203/t20220322_302792.shtml
UNESCO: http://www.unesco-hist.org/index.php?r=en/article/info&id=1714
Journal of Geophysical Research: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2022JG007101
Remote Sensing: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/13/2592
International Journal of Remote Sensing: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431161.2021.2022804
International Journal of Digital Earth: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538947.2023.2190625
In science, we call this "cherrypicking data." Colloquially, we understand this to be because someone fucked their experimental validation. In the real world, we call this "disseminating misinformation."
global-scale data cannot reasonably represent changes in the regional land cover. Moreover, different studies may have different accuracies within the same region and even may reach opposite conclusions
The idea that indigenous peoples should be subjugated and forcefully integrated by settlers is an inherently racial problem. This was just as true in Canada and the US as it was true in South America as it is in Palestine today.
From the Atlantic to the Pacific, the indigenous people of North America should be free.