5 ms·

Supposedly, 95% of Americans were killed by diseases, so it didn't feel as bad. Especially if your perspective on the matter was (and it really was) that "God h

Supposedly, 95% of Americans were killed by diseases, so it didn't feel as bad. Especially if your perspective on the matter was (and it really was) that "God has given America to us and the proof is that he is is killing the Indians to make room for us"

ldd 12y ago
Say, why is the population of Andean countries (Ecuador, Colombia, Peru, Bolovia) so high in natives and 'mestizos' compared with North American countries? The disease hypothesis puzzles me because it cannot explain the reality of such countries, where I come from. Moreover, I'd argue that a factor was the idea that English settlers came as families instead of as unmarried men, like the Spaniards. At any rate, I am not saying you are wrong. The evidence seems to point towards a different idea, but it is possible that I am wrong or stuff.
- lamuerteflaca 12y ago
  Not only that, 60 percent of Mexicans are mestizos and millions more are pure blooded indegenous people. Truth is that American's ancestors where quite genocidal among other things. To the point of almost exterminating most of North America's population. Just like the Buffalo. It really is quite a sad tale. That in itself tells you that there is no God. And if there is then he might as well not exist.
  - mc32 12y ago
    About the buffalo. First nations really think it's funny (patronizing) when some whites think FNs were all about peace and understanding. It makes them out to be emasculated. No, they say, we killed way more buffalo than whites ever did. Colonialists killed buffalo as a proxy siege warfare b/c buffalo were a vital natural resource for many FNs. I think the Spaniards (or Iberians), given their religion, were way more accepting of other peoples and readily mixed --which is why you end up with so many meztizos in LAm --whereas initial NA settlers were less likely to reproduce with FN peoples.
    - cbd1984 12y ago
      > No, they say, we killed way more buffalo than whites ever did. Ah, but the official mythology is that they used every part. Sure. They herded massive groups of buffalo off buffalo jumps, which are essentially small cliffs, so that they'd fall and crush each other when they went off the edge, and they'd use every part of all of the hundreds of full-grown buffalo they killed. But everyone knows the White Man invented waste. Thus it was, thus it must ever be.
      - mc32 12y ago
        The greatest respect one can offer another society is to treat them as being the same kind of humans as ourselves -raw, opportunistic, realists who would go to similar lengths as ourselves to achieve goals, not the fake respectful nonsense people project onto them to subvert them.
      - pyre 12y ago
        I somehow doubt that the indigenous peoples killed this many buffalo: http://cache.wists.com/thumbnails/7/37/7377f4d1d8add3298c08c9d8cff15046-orig http://cache.wists.com/thumbnails/7/37/7377f4d1d8add3298c08c... But I'm open to the idea if you have more than just hand-waving to offer.
        cbd1984 12y ago
        What, exactly, are you disagreeing with? The idea of a buffalo jump or my doubts that they used every part?
        coldtea 12y ago
        Isn't it a little disingenious to only present these two things, and not the larger issue that matters more? I, for one, disagree with the idea that the "buffalo jump" was all that prevalent and had a measurable impact, compared to the whites driving the buffalos to what they are now....
        12y ago
- AngrySkillzz 12y ago
  Latin and South America were far more developed than North America when the Westerners arrived. There were a lot more natives in those areas; nothing near the size and population of something like Tenochtitlan existed in NA. We're talking estimates of ~37 million in Latin America versus ~7 million in North America.
- iaejpiejf23 12y ago
  > The disease hypothesis puzzles me because it cannot explain the reality of such countries The disease hypothesis is bullshit. Some retard wrote a silly book about it and nytimes pushed it like it was gospel. The royal proclamation of 1763 set the border between the colonists and the indians at the appalachian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 Even after disease supposedly wiped out the indians, we could only push the indians past the appalachians in the 1760s.
- learc83 12y ago
  Civilizations south of the modern day U.S. were far larger. That means more people to begin with, but also there is a theory that their immune systems were better prepared to deal with European diseases because they lived in large cities like Europeans.
- tarollins 12y ago
  The US WAS ABOUT segregation seperation of race, no race mixing. These adean countries were about integration, intermarriage , in effect classism. Intergration in South America was about bettering your family and childrens future by lightening your race. In other words race mixing was allowed. Not like the Jim Crow laws in the US.
iaejpiejf23 12y ago
But 95% of natives didn't die of disease. Unless you are saying white men are a disease. We had to cull the indians like we culled the bison, deer, wolves, bears, etc. It was the most successful genocidal campaign in human history. It was also one of the most successful clearing the land of all life period. Settlers were paid for each indian scalp they got. Indian men, women and children were hunted and slaughtered wholesale. Idiots like Jared Diamond might try to absolve our sins by lying about how the indians died. But the truth of how the west was won is no so convenient. It was brutal and rapacious. I mean, we didn't even push the natives past the appalachian mountains until the 1760s and that idiot jared diamond wants us to believe the natives essentially died off in the 1500s.
- dasil003 12y ago
  But let's not romanticize Native American culture either. The Comanche formed a barrier between the Spanish and the French/British Americans through most of the 1800s, and they did this by subjugating the other tribes around them and by maintaining a war-like stance at all times. There was simply no way that they could co-exist with a European culture. It's very easy to sit here with our 21st century morality and say what we did was wrong, but we have no idea the kind of hardship that people on both sides were living through and trying to make a life for themselves. We simply don't have the context to judge them. It was what it was.
  - learc83 12y ago
    You can also look north the the Thule (Inuit) and Dorset cultures. The Thule expanded to Canada and Greenland in the middle ages, and in a very short time they completely wiped out the dominant Dorset culture that had existed for thousands of years. The modern day Inuit are descendants of conquerors in exactly the same way that descendants of European settlers are.
    - lamuerteflaca 12y ago
      And I'm sure that if there were any Dorset left they too would still be cursing them for wiping them out.

ldd 12y ago

Say, why is the population of Andean countries (Ecuador, Colombia, Peru, Bolovia) so high in natives and 'mestizos' compared with North American countries? The disease hypothesis puzzles me because it cannot explain the reality of such countries, where I come from. Moreover, I'd argue that a factor was the idea that English settlers came as families instead of as unmarried men, like the Spaniards. At any rate, I am not saying you are wrong. The evidence seems to point towards a different idea, but it is possible that I am wrong or stuff.

lamuerteflaca 12y ago
Not only that, 60 percent of Mexicans are mestizos and millions more are pure blooded indegenous people. Truth is that American's ancestors where quite genocidal among other things. To the point of almost exterminating most of North America's population. Just like the Buffalo. It really is quite a sad tale. That in itself tells you that there is no God. And if there is then he might as well not exist.
- mc32 12y ago
  About the buffalo. First nations really think it's funny (patronizing) when some whites think FNs were all about peace and understanding. It makes them out to be emasculated. No, they say, we killed way more buffalo than whites ever did. Colonialists killed buffalo as a proxy siege warfare b/c buffalo were a vital natural resource for many FNs. I think the Spaniards (or Iberians), given their religion, were way more accepting of other peoples and readily mixed --which is why you end up with so many meztizos in LAm --whereas initial NA settlers were less likely to reproduce with FN peoples.
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    > No, they say, we killed way more buffalo than whites ever did. Ah, but the official mythology is that they used every part. Sure. They herded massive groups of buffalo off buffalo jumps, which are essentially small cliffs, so that they'd fall and crush each other when they went off the edge, and they'd use every part of all of the hundreds of full-grown buffalo they killed. But everyone knows the White Man invented waste. Thus it was, thus it must ever be.
    - mc32 12y ago
      The greatest respect one can offer another society is to treat them as being the same kind of humans as ourselves -raw, opportunistic, realists who would go to similar lengths as ourselves to achieve goals, not the fake respectful nonsense people project onto them to subvert them.
    - pyre 12y ago
      I somehow doubt that the indigenous peoples killed this many buffalo: http://cache.wists.com/thumbnails/7/37/7377f4d1d8add3298c08c9d8cff15046-orig http://cache.wists.com/thumbnails/7/37/7377f4d1d8add3298c08c... But I'm open to the idea if you have more than just hand-waving to offer.
      - cbd1984 12y ago
        What, exactly, are you disagreeing with? The idea of a buffalo jump or my doubts that they used every part?
        coldtea 12y ago
        Isn't it a little disingenious to only present these two things, and not the larger issue that matters more? I, for one, disagree with the idea that the "buffalo jump" was all that prevalent and had a measurable impact, compared to the whites driving the buffalos to what they are now....
        12y ago
AngrySkillzz 12y ago
Latin and South America were far more developed than North America when the Westerners arrived. There were a lot more natives in those areas; nothing near the size and population of something like Tenochtitlan existed in NA. We're talking estimates of ~37 million in Latin America versus ~7 million in North America.
iaejpiejf23 12y ago
> The disease hypothesis puzzles me because it cannot explain the reality of such countries The disease hypothesis is bullshit. Some retard wrote a silly book about it and nytimes pushed it like it was gospel. The royal proclamation of 1763 set the border between the colonists and the indians at the appalachian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763 Even after disease supposedly wiped out the indians, we could only push the indians past the appalachians in the 1760s.
learc83 12y ago
Civilizations south of the modern day U.S. were far larger. That means more people to begin with, but also there is a theory that their immune systems were better prepared to deal with European diseases because they lived in large cities like Europeans.
tarollins 12y ago
The US WAS ABOUT segregation seperation of race, no race mixing. These adean countries were about integration, intermarriage , in effect classism. Intergration in South America was about bettering your family and childrens future by lightening your race. In other words race mixing was allowed. Not like the Jim Crow laws in the US.

iaejpiejf23 12y ago

But 95% of natives didn't die of disease. Unless you are saying white men are a disease. We had to cull the indians like we culled the bison, deer, wolves, bears, etc. It was the most successful genocidal campaign in human history. It was also one of the most successful clearing the land of all life period. Settlers were paid for each indian scalp they got. Indian men, women and children were hunted and slaughtered wholesale. Idiots like Jared Diamond might try to absolve our sins by lying about how the indians died. But the truth of how the west was won is no so convenient. It was brutal and rapacious. I mean, we didn't even push the natives past the appalachian mountains until the 1760s and that idiot jared diamond wants us to believe the natives essentially died off in the 1500s.

dasil003 12y ago
But let's not romanticize Native American culture either. The Comanche formed a barrier between the Spanish and the French/British Americans through most of the 1800s, and they did this by subjugating the other tribes around them and by maintaining a war-like stance at all times. There was simply no way that they could co-exist with a European culture. It's very easy to sit here with our 21st century morality and say what we did was wrong, but we have no idea the kind of hardship that people on both sides were living through and trying to make a life for themselves. We simply don't have the context to judge them. It was what it was.
- learc83 12y ago
  You can also look north the the Thule (Inuit) and Dorset cultures. The Thule expanded to Canada and Greenland in the middle ages, and in a very short time they completely wiped out the dominant Dorset culture that had existed for thousands of years. The modern day Inuit are descendants of conquerors in exactly the same way that descendants of European settlers are.
  - lamuerteflaca 12y ago
    And I'm sure that if there were any Dorset left they too would still be cursing them for wiping them out.