4 ms·
There seems to be a dogmatic insistence on the potency of the the widespread epidemic that happened after the first contact. The assertion seems to be: 1. There
by nafey 7y ago
There seems to be a dogmatic insistence on the potency of the the widespread epidemic that happened after the first contact. The assertion seems to be:
1. There was a drastic fall in the population density of the natives
2. There is a critical density of population below which the indegenous people's claim on land in relinquished
3. A density of population below this was seen in North America before mass immigration of Europeans.
4. If it were not so the Settlers would have been culpable of genocide of the Natives
5. We know that 4 can't be true hence 3
- azeotropic 7y agoI don't see anyone insisting on 2 or 4 here, just you. If a particular group with a narrow territorial claim is wiped out by disease (that is, population density drops to 0), it seems like 2 should apply to that narrow territory. It's not like each the native of the Americas asserted a territorial claim on all territories of the Americas. There were different groups with different, sometimes competing, claims, and each enforced those claims with military power or lost them. This was true both before and after European arrival. I think everyone here agrees that genocides did occur, especially in North America and the Carribean, but is pointing out that the overwhelming majority of the native population decline was due to diseases that few people understood and none could effectively control. I think the argument is that when all the Taino are dead from disease, it's not clear that any of, say, the Algonquins have a better claim to any of the lesser Antilles than the Spanish crown does.