3 ms·

Disease was pretty indiscriminate and wiped out the vast majority of the population throughout the Americas. Before European arrival there were a massive number

Disease was pretty indiscriminate and wiped out the vast majority of the population throughout the Americas. Before European arrival there were a massive number of people living throughout Central America, the Amazon rainforest, etc. Populations didn’t recover until several centuries later (and in some places, still haven’t). The big difference between the USA and regions further south is that in the USA white settlers just mass-slaughtered most of those who remained post-disease so they could steal their land, whereas further south they were instead pressed into forced labor in service of a relatively small group of white colonial overseers. It’s kind of like the difference between bison and cows. The former are economically extraneous so mostly got wiped out, whereas the latter are economically important domesticated slaves and therefore survive. (If this metaphor seems racist, note that throughout the Americas the ideology of ruling whites held that indigenous people were subhuman and undeserving of basic rights.)

Doubl 8y ago
That sounds pretty accurate to me, sadly. But it's not just a white thing, it's a human thing. The indigenous people of the Americas did the same to each other. Ditto everywhere else.
Doubl 8y ago
That sounds pretty accurate to me, sadly. But it's not just a white thing, it's a human thing. The indigenous people of the Americas did the same too each other. Ditto everywhere else.
toasterlovin 8y ago
> The big difference between the USA and regions further south is that in the USA white settlers just mass-slaughtered most of those who remained post-disease so they could steal their land, whereas further south they were instead pressed into forced labor in service of a relatively small group of white colonial overseers. This seems to be at odds with the fact that the US colonies (some of them, at least) imported African slaves. In theory, if they needed slave labor, why not make slaves out of the indigenous? Which leads me to believe that there's another distinction at play. I like umanwizard's explanation that the North America was settled by families whereas Central and South America were settled by single men. This would seem to jive with the genetic evidence from Central and South America that there is a high degree of admixture between Europeans and indigenous people, but that it is heavily skewed toward European males mating with indigenous females. EDIT: Though now that I think about it, perhaps disease resistance in African slaves was an important factor in why they were preferred over indigenous.
- DuskStar 8y ago
  > In theory, if they needed slave labor, why not make slaves out of the indigenous? It's a lot harder for an imported slave to run off than a local one. Local slave knows the land, knows where to run to, has a decent expectation that if they run there things will be better... An imported slave who runs doesn't really have that. And where systems could be put in place to keep slaves from running, like the islands of the Caribbean? Well, those natives were worked to death, and then African slaves were imported to replace them. (And then more replacements came, because they were serious about that "working to death" thing)
  - DoctorOetker 8y ago
    also, when victims are imported (from multiple places) there are no nearby kins and intertribal treaties to retaliate against the agressor

Doubl 8y ago

That sounds pretty accurate to me, sadly. But it's not just a white thing, it's a human thing. The indigenous people of the Americas did the same to each other. Ditto everywhere else.

Doubl 8y ago

That sounds pretty accurate to me, sadly. But it's not just a white thing, it's a human thing. The indigenous people of the Americas did the same too each other. Ditto everywhere else.

toasterlovin 8y ago

> The big difference between the USA and regions further south is that in the USA white settlers just mass-slaughtered most of those who remained post-disease so they could steal their land, whereas further south they were instead pressed into forced labor in service of a relatively small group of white colonial overseers. This seems to be at odds with the fact that the US colonies (some of them, at least) imported African slaves. In theory, if they needed slave labor, why not make slaves out of the indigenous? Which leads me to believe that there's another distinction at play. I like umanwizard's explanation that the North America was settled by families whereas Central and South America were settled by single men. This would seem to jive with the genetic evidence from Central and South America that there is a high degree of admixture between Europeans and indigenous people, but that it is heavily skewed toward European males mating with indigenous females. EDIT: Though now that I think about it, perhaps disease resistance in African slaves was an important factor in why they were preferred over indigenous.

DuskStar 8y ago
> In theory, if they needed slave labor, why not make slaves out of the indigenous? It's a lot harder for an imported slave to run off than a local one. Local slave knows the land, knows where to run to, has a decent expectation that if they run there things will be better... An imported slave who runs doesn't really have that. And where systems could be put in place to keep slaves from running, like the islands of the Caribbean? Well, those natives were worked to death, and then African slaves were imported to replace them. (And then more replacements came, because they were serious about that "working to death" thing)
- DoctorOetker 8y ago
  also, when victims are imported (from multiple places) there are no nearby kins and intertribal treaties to retaliate against the agressor