4 ms·

The population was already declining when Europeans got here. But it dropped precipitously thereafter, starting almost immediately due to disease. By the 1600s,

The population was already declining when Europeans got here. But it dropped precipitously thereafter, starting almost immediately due to disease. By the 1600s, tribes in the east were nearly wiped out. Since the majority of "explorers" came to America after this time, the accounts of the native cultures reflect an already-defeated society. For years, it was thought inconceivable that the native cultures encountered in the 1600s could have built such elaborate structures. The common understanding was full of racist overtones - these cultures were too "primitive" to have built cities. Reality is that if Europeans met Native Americans in say 1100, the situation would be reversed - the Americas were thriving with trade and cities while Europeans were largely subsistence-farming peasants caught in the dark ages. If you're interested in this topic, definitely check out "Origin: A genetic history of the Americas" by Jennifer Raff.

suggestion 2y ago
The "Dark Ages" are a complete myth and Europeans were far more technologically, culturally, and economically advanced and prolific than Native Americans in the Early Middle Ages, in spite of deurbanization and the other recessions of the time period.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > The "Dark Ages" are a complete myth I think you are greatly exaggerating an argument that merely attacks a strawperson: That everything was bad, etc. in the Dark Ages. The world isn't as simple as the strawperson, but the Dark Ages were pretty dark compared to ancient Rome before and, of course, the Englightenment that followed (in which, by a broader definition, we still live). > Europeans were far more technologically, culturally, and economically advanced and prolific than Native Americans in the Early Middle Ages Could you share some source to support that, where people can read more?
  - suggestion 2y ago
    >First paragraph The argument posited was that Europeans during the "Dark Ages" were inferior economically and culturally to the Native Americans. There's virtually no point in history in which this was true. >Could you share some source to support that, where people can read more? The Iron Age Prolific Written Language Interstate Commerce Sophisticated Art, particularly music Prolific Agrarian societies Prolific complex architecture That's just a few examples. There's no single source, it's self evident when surveying the Early Middle Ages.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      Those are more claims; in what sources could we find support for them? Or maybe you are an historian or archaeologist? > Prolific complex architecture > Prolific Agrarian societies Those did exist in the Americas, off the top of my head, and problably others did too.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        > Or maybe you are an historian or archaeologist? I don't mean that sarcastically - maybe you have some expertise.
Aloisius 2y ago
Em. In 1492, most of the European population were still subsistence farming peasants. Those generally weren't the people who became explorers. Given disease still would have wiped out the bulk of the Americas had people started to arrive in 1100 and it still would have taken a while before they got very far inland, I'm not entirely sure impressions would have been all that much different.
atlas_hugged 2y ago
Read Hernan Cortez’s own description of the Aztec empire when he arrived.

suggestion 2y ago

The "Dark Ages" are a complete myth and Europeans were far more technologically, culturally, and economically advanced and prolific than Native Americans in the Early Middle Ages, in spite of deurbanization and the other recessions of the time period.

mmooss 2y ago
> The "Dark Ages" are a complete myth I think you are greatly exaggerating an argument that merely attacks a strawperson: That everything was bad, etc. in the Dark Ages. The world isn't as simple as the strawperson, but the Dark Ages were pretty dark compared to ancient Rome before and, of course, the Englightenment that followed (in which, by a broader definition, we still live). > Europeans were far more technologically, culturally, and economically advanced and prolific than Native Americans in the Early Middle Ages Could you share some source to support that, where people can read more?
- suggestion 2y ago
  >First paragraph The argument posited was that Europeans during the "Dark Ages" were inferior economically and culturally to the Native Americans. There's virtually no point in history in which this was true. >Could you share some source to support that, where people can read more? The Iron Age Prolific Written Language Interstate Commerce Sophisticated Art, particularly music Prolific Agrarian societies Prolific complex architecture That's just a few examples. There's no single source, it's self evident when surveying the Early Middle Ages.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Those are more claims; in what sources could we find support for them? Or maybe you are an historian or archaeologist? > Prolific complex architecture > Prolific Agrarian societies Those did exist in the Americas, off the top of my head, and problably others did too.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      > Or maybe you are an historian or archaeologist? I don't mean that sarcastically - maybe you have some expertise.

Aloisius 2y ago

Em. In 1492, most of the European population were still subsistence farming peasants. Those generally weren't the people who became explorers. Given disease still would have wiped out the bulk of the Americas had people started to arrive in 1100 and it still would have taken a while before they got very far inland, I'm not entirely sure impressions would have been all that much different.

atlas_hugged 2y ago

Read Hernan Cortez’s own description of the Aztec empire when he arrived.