4 ms·

Not sure if it's 100% clickbait, there is some really interesting stuff I didn't know. Also it makes me realize that all indigenous peoples across what you cal

Not sure if it's 100% clickbait, there is some really interesting stuff I didn't know. Also it makes me realize that all indigenous peoples across what you call the Americas have been/are being subjected to all kinds of discrimination and systematic extermination, from North America all the way to the island of Tierra del Fuego, and of course here in Colombia. We all try to hide our own past for some reason and feel ashamed of it while ignoring the spaniard/european culture and beliefs they brought there have huge flaws compared to what was already here for thousands of years.

nradov 8mo ago
That's true, the European explorers and colonists did commit horrific crimes against humanity. But let's not romanticize the indigenous cultures either. They were equally flawed and did just as terrible things to other local groups. https://www.science.org/content/article/feeding-gods-hundreds-skulls-reveal-massive-scale-human-sacrifice-aztec-capital https://www.science.org/content/article/feeding-gods-hundred...
- luqtas 8mo ago
  > the European explorers and colonists did commit horrific crimes against humanity not only horrific but the biggest hollocaust in the entire human history, with around 34 million people killed from 1500 up to 2025 with that said, people romanticize them too much. canibalism, war and also a (probably) big impact in one of the most rich ecosystems of Earth: the Amazon was ripped with their practices of burning stuff and planting dominant species among the forest that reduced for sure the amount of biodiversity in their +15,000 years of existence there. tho not defending EU ppl ripping out their forest till the border of rivers
  - ljsprague 8mo ago
    >not only horrific but the biggest hollocaust in the entire human history Does this number include deaths due to introduced diseases?
    - mc32 8mo ago
      If it does then the Black Death introduced by Genghis Khan in the Middle East and Europe is likely higher.
  - gjsman-1000 8mo ago
    That number is statistically too high. Most historians pinpoint it at around 5-15 million. Communist Russia (3-20 million) and Communist China (15-40 million) both killed more.
    - luqtas 8mo ago
      your number is about North America. i hate when people sum America to the North. we are chatting about everyone from both continents i went to check on the doc. i watched (https://youtu.be/laW_Yf6N4kU?si=vi3KY9prfdqfNybC&t=1176 https://youtu.be/laW_Yf6N4kU?si=vi3KY9prfdqfNybC&t=1176) and i have to make a correction: they point out that the majority of the 80 million people living on America were killed on the first 100 years of colonization. they do talk impartially as it being one of the biggest holocaust known to the humanity. i don't agree on excluding death numbers from disease. it wasn't something like the Black Death (25 million) where effected countries weren't in war, nor they were also being blown out of existence by superior (war) technology and 80 million aren't even the highest estimations historians suggest [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indi... ¶ some historians point up to 100 million people killed
      - wahern 8mo ago
        > they point out that the majority of the 80 million people living on America were killed on the first 100 years of colonization. they do talk impartially as it being one of the biggest holocaust known to the humanity. i don't agree on excluding death numbers from disease. it wasn't something like the Black Death (25 million) where effected countries weren't in war, nor they were also being blown out of existence by superior (war) technology A majority of deaths by disease occurred before Europeans even made contact with the regional population. So to differentiate the Black Death because it didn't involve a state of conflict doesn't make sense. Most of the natives who died had never even seen a European, let alone live in a state of conflict with them. In fact, AFAIU disease began sweeping across the Americas before colonial conquests had even begun, initial transmission occurring during exploratory and trade missions.
  - ab5tract 8mo ago
    Where can I read this certainty of destroyed biodiversity? That sounds like an extremely unsupported position, considering that the Amazon has the highest rates of biodiversity today. The continued belittling of indigenous forestry practices contributes to out of control wildfires.
    - luqtas 8mo ago
      https://portal.amelica.org/ameli/journal/181/1813954027/html/ https://portal.amelica.org/ameli/journal/181/1813954027/html... https://www.sp-amazon.org/publications https://www.sp-amazon.org/publications
      - ab5tract 8mo ago
        > The forest itself, paleo-scientists of all stripes say, is much more domesticated than previously thought. This implies that the biodiversity is a result of (or, at the very least, supported by) the indigenous practices, which is a far cry from your claim that biodiversity suffered from those practices.
        luqtas 8mo ago
        have you actually read anything? indigenous were pointed as responsibles for cultivating dominant species which had an impact and shaped the flora. the last website i published is a whole book showing how its rich biodiversity happened over multi million year processes. it also points out the impact on the "funneling" of species indigenous occupations had i still think despite their impact, they were exemplar compared to what we had on the rest of the world (but i never studied Asia). but it's not like they were magicians that had no impact on anything and lived in complete synergy with nature by increasing biodiversity. and if you think cultivating biological dominant species across a forest has no impact i suggest you to research on the many examples of alien flora effects on various ecosystem on modernity or even try to throw some Hawaiian Baby Woodrose somewhere out their native land to check how much these species take over anothers. they probably killed and reduced species expression to settle themselves there. but cest la vie. living has an impact after all
  - assaddayinh 8mo ago
    These super lative rich western diabolism always sounds like trump when i read it.
    - luqtas 8mo ago
      all of my arguments made on this thread don't try to justify the colonization. that's why i typed 'holocaust'. heck i would even like Portuguese churches melting their gold back to Brazil make electronics and their government having to actively help the extensive social problems the country still has to deal with don't link me with that guy
  - verisimi 8mo ago
    These numbers are surely numbers on a spreadsheet, unless you are referring to literal bodies that have been counted. In this article itself, we read that: > When Estrada-Belli first came to Tikal as a child, the best estimate for the classic-era (AD600-900) population of the surrounding Maya lowlands – encompassing present day southern Mexico, Belize and northern Guatemala – would have been about 2 million people. Today, his team believes that the region was home to up to 16 million The point is that spreadsheet estimates can be so wrong, they are verging on meaningless.
- crooked-v 8mo ago
  The Aztecs in particular were kind of uniquely terrible, both for their own citizens and for every oppressed pseudo-vassal-state around them. It's one of those weird accidents of history that Spanish colonizers were able to step into the power vacuum after the fall of Tenochtitlan and have at least some people genuinely think 'yes, this is better than the last boss'.
  - reactordev 8mo ago
    They were kind of to blame for the fall of Tenochtitlan no? Cortez was welcomed as an "Ambassador" vs as a conqueror.
    - PepperdineG 8mo ago
      They rather put in with Cortez then send their kids off to the annual Aztec Hunger Games [Flower Wars].
    - crooked-v 8mo ago
      Cortez came to Tenochtitlan as an 'ambassador' at the head of an army of 200,000 angry neighbors of the Aztecs, who had realized pretty fast that even a few of these 'gun' things would be really useful for cracking the city's structural resistance to sieges.
- torginus 8mo ago
  While I have no doubt that most Western colonial empires did not have the conquered's best interests at heart, I've read a theory (particularly about the Spaniards and Portugese in Latin America), is just Westerners are in aggregate were just better at running civilization, which is a horrible crime to utter in some circles, but I feel like the evolution of Western systems of governance, diplomacy, technology, culture made it superior to most civilizations in the marketplace of ideas. One could see the mass appeal of a faraway king who promises three square meals, a decent lodging, a reasonable legal system, and preaches unconditional brotherly love, to every human being. And even if some of those things are only true some of the time, when taken in aggregate, this led to these people winning just often enough that the scales tipped in their favor over time. And while most non-Western civilizations were certainly superior over certain time periods in some aspect, those who ended up not being conquered, either had constant contact with the West to know what to expect, or recognized their own shortcomings and rapidly endeavored to remedy them. I don't think military conquest of a faraway land can be maintained without the consent of the populance, certainly not as a profitable endeavor, and that usually involves offering something to the populance they couldn't get otherwise. There are plenty of examples of people subjugated for centuries who have kept their religion, customs and identity, likewise most of the jihadists who shout 'Death To America!' probably still like Star Wars.
  - felipeerias 8mo ago
    Civilisations in the Americas were significantly less technologically developed than those in Eurasia. We focus our analysis on the Spanish and Portuguese, but the outcome would not have been much different had their place been taken by the Ottoman or the Chinese. The Mayan and the Aztecs were roughly at a similar level of development as ancient Sumer or Babylon: good agricultural practices, irrigation, astronomy, elaborated culture, rich mythologies, very basic metallurgy, early state structures, etc. Sumer and Babylon were great civilisations whose legacy can still be traced today. The same is true for the Maya and the Aztec. Had you visited any of them in their prime, you would have been awed by their skill and sophistication. And yet, think of everything that happened in Eurasia between Hammurabi and Columbus, and you will get a sense of how wide the gap was when the two worlds met.
- assaddayinh 8mo ago
  The proof is in the pudding. You can not conquer with so few so much unless, the locals welcome you as a useful liberator from grotesq tyranny and try to use you as a tool of liberation. The conquistadores are a display of how volatile tyranny based empires are. To then only be replaced by even more tyranny, after the chaos of revolution and disease.
- BurningFrog 8mo ago
  Here is the main cause why the conquistadores won: 80-90% of the natives died from European diseases before they had a chance to oppose the invaders. This was purely accidental! 300 years before germ theory, no one knew how and why this happened, but in the end conquering nations that were mostly dead already isn't that hard. Of course, the conquistadores were incredibly cruel by modern standards, as were the natives. But that's not why they won.
empath75 8mo ago
Guatemala is a great place to visit if you want to experience it first hand. Lake Atitlan is breathtaking.

nradov 8mo ago

That's true, the European explorers and colonists did commit horrific crimes against humanity. But let's not romanticize the indigenous cultures either. They were equally flawed and did just as terrible things to other local groups. https://www.science.org/content/article/feeding-gods-hundreds-skulls-reveal-massive-scale-human-sacrifice-aztec-capital https://www.science.org/content/article/feeding-gods-hundred...

luqtas 8mo ago
> the European explorers and colonists did commit horrific crimes against humanity not only horrific but the biggest hollocaust in the entire human history, with around 34 million people killed from 1500 up to 2025 with that said, people romanticize them too much. canibalism, war and also a (probably) big impact in one of the most rich ecosystems of Earth: the Amazon was ripped with their practices of burning stuff and planting dominant species among the forest that reduced for sure the amount of biodiversity in their +15,000 years of existence there. tho not defending EU ppl ripping out their forest till the border of rivers
- ljsprague 8mo ago
  >not only horrific but the biggest hollocaust in the entire human history Does this number include deaths due to introduced diseases?
  - mc32 8mo ago
    If it does then the Black Death introduced by Genghis Khan in the Middle East and Europe is likely higher.
- gjsman-1000 8mo ago
  That number is statistically too high. Most historians pinpoint it at around 5-15 million. Communist Russia (3-20 million) and Communist China (15-40 million) both killed more.
  - luqtas 8mo ago
    your number is about North America. i hate when people sum America to the North. we are chatting about everyone from both continents i went to check on the doc. i watched (https://youtu.be/laW_Yf6N4kU?si=vi3KY9prfdqfNybC&t=1176 https://youtu.be/laW_Yf6N4kU?si=vi3KY9prfdqfNybC&t=1176) and i have to make a correction: they point out that the majority of the 80 million people living on America were killed on the first 100 years of colonization. they do talk impartially as it being one of the biggest holocaust known to the humanity. i don't agree on excluding death numbers from disease. it wasn't something like the Black Death (25 million) where effected countries weren't in war, nor they were also being blown out of existence by superior (war) technology and 80 million aren't even the highest estimations historians suggest [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indi... ¶ some historians point up to 100 million people killed
    - wahern 8mo ago
      > they point out that the majority of the 80 million people living on America were killed on the first 100 years of colonization. they do talk impartially as it being one of the biggest holocaust known to the humanity. i don't agree on excluding death numbers from disease. it wasn't something like the Black Death (25 million) where effected countries weren't in war, nor they were also being blown out of existence by superior (war) technology A majority of deaths by disease occurred before Europeans even made contact with the regional population. So to differentiate the Black Death because it didn't involve a state of conflict doesn't make sense. Most of the natives who died had never even seen a European, let alone live in a state of conflict with them. In fact, AFAIU disease began sweeping across the Americas before colonial conquests had even begun, initial transmission occurring during exploratory and trade missions.
- ab5tract 8mo ago
  Where can I read this certainty of destroyed biodiversity? That sounds like an extremely unsupported position, considering that the Amazon has the highest rates of biodiversity today. The continued belittling of indigenous forestry practices contributes to out of control wildfires.
  - luqtas 8mo ago
    https://portal.amelica.org/ameli/journal/181/1813954027/html/ https://portal.amelica.org/ameli/journal/181/1813954027/html... https://www.sp-amazon.org/publications https://www.sp-amazon.org/publications
    - ab5tract 8mo ago
      > The forest itself, paleo-scientists of all stripes say, is much more domesticated than previously thought. This implies that the biodiversity is a result of (or, at the very least, supported by) the indigenous practices, which is a far cry from your claim that biodiversity suffered from those practices.
      - luqtas 8mo ago
        have you actually read anything? indigenous were pointed as responsibles for cultivating dominant species which had an impact and shaped the flora. the last website i published is a whole book showing how its rich biodiversity happened over multi million year processes. it also points out the impact on the "funneling" of species indigenous occupations had i still think despite their impact, they were exemplar compared to what we had on the rest of the world (but i never studied Asia). but it's not like they were magicians that had no impact on anything and lived in complete synergy with nature by increasing biodiversity. and if you think cultivating biological dominant species across a forest has no impact i suggest you to research on the many examples of alien flora effects on various ecosystem on modernity or even try to throw some Hawaiian Baby Woodrose somewhere out their native land to check how much these species take over anothers. they probably killed and reduced species expression to settle themselves there. but cest la vie. living has an impact after all
- assaddayinh 8mo ago
  These super lative rich western diabolism always sounds like trump when i read it.
  - luqtas 8mo ago
    all of my arguments made on this thread don't try to justify the colonization. that's why i typed 'holocaust'. heck i would even like Portuguese churches melting their gold back to Brazil make electronics and their government having to actively help the extensive social problems the country still has to deal with don't link me with that guy
- verisimi 8mo ago
  These numbers are surely numbers on a spreadsheet, unless you are referring to literal bodies that have been counted. In this article itself, we read that: > When Estrada-Belli first came to Tikal as a child, the best estimate for the classic-era (AD600-900) population of the surrounding Maya lowlands – encompassing present day southern Mexico, Belize and northern Guatemala – would have been about 2 million people. Today, his team believes that the region was home to up to 16 million The point is that spreadsheet estimates can be so wrong, they are verging on meaningless.
crooked-v 8mo ago
The Aztecs in particular were kind of uniquely terrible, both for their own citizens and for every oppressed pseudo-vassal-state around them. It's one of those weird accidents of history that Spanish colonizers were able to step into the power vacuum after the fall of Tenochtitlan and have at least some people genuinely think 'yes, this is better than the last boss'.
- reactordev 8mo ago
  They were kind of to blame for the fall of Tenochtitlan no? Cortez was welcomed as an "Ambassador" vs as a conqueror.
  - PepperdineG 8mo ago
    They rather put in with Cortez then send their kids off to the annual Aztec Hunger Games [Flower Wars].
  - crooked-v 8mo ago
    Cortez came to Tenochtitlan as an 'ambassador' at the head of an army of 200,000 angry neighbors of the Aztecs, who had realized pretty fast that even a few of these 'gun' things would be really useful for cracking the city's structural resistance to sieges.
torginus 8mo ago
While I have no doubt that most Western colonial empires did not have the conquered's best interests at heart, I've read a theory (particularly about the Spaniards and Portugese in Latin America), is just Westerners are in aggregate were just better at running civilization, which is a horrible crime to utter in some circles, but I feel like the evolution of Western systems of governance, diplomacy, technology, culture made it superior to most civilizations in the marketplace of ideas. One could see the mass appeal of a faraway king who promises three square meals, a decent lodging, a reasonable legal system, and preaches unconditional brotherly love, to every human being. And even if some of those things are only true some of the time, when taken in aggregate, this led to these people winning just often enough that the scales tipped in their favor over time. And while most non-Western civilizations were certainly superior over certain time periods in some aspect, those who ended up not being conquered, either had constant contact with the West to know what to expect, or recognized their own shortcomings and rapidly endeavored to remedy them. I don't think military conquest of a faraway land can be maintained without the consent of the populance, certainly not as a profitable endeavor, and that usually involves offering something to the populance they couldn't get otherwise. There are plenty of examples of people subjugated for centuries who have kept their religion, customs and identity, likewise most of the jihadists who shout 'Death To America!' probably still like Star Wars.
- felipeerias 8mo ago
  Civilisations in the Americas were significantly less technologically developed than those in Eurasia. We focus our analysis on the Spanish and Portuguese, but the outcome would not have been much different had their place been taken by the Ottoman or the Chinese. The Mayan and the Aztecs were roughly at a similar level of development as ancient Sumer or Babylon: good agricultural practices, irrigation, astronomy, elaborated culture, rich mythologies, very basic metallurgy, early state structures, etc. Sumer and Babylon were great civilisations whose legacy can still be traced today. The same is true for the Maya and the Aztec. Had you visited any of them in their prime, you would have been awed by their skill and sophistication. And yet, think of everything that happened in Eurasia between Hammurabi and Columbus, and you will get a sense of how wide the gap was when the two worlds met.
assaddayinh 8mo ago
The proof is in the pudding. You can not conquer with so few so much unless, the locals welcome you as a useful liberator from grotesq tyranny and try to use you as a tool of liberation. The conquistadores are a display of how volatile tyranny based empires are. To then only be replaced by even more tyranny, after the chaos of revolution and disease.
BurningFrog 8mo ago
Here is the main cause why the conquistadores won: 80-90% of the natives died from European diseases before they had a chance to oppose the invaders. This was purely accidental! 300 years before germ theory, no one knew how and why this happened, but in the end conquering nations that were mostly dead already isn't that hard. Of course, the conquistadores were incredibly cruel by modern standards, as were the natives. But that's not why they won.

empath75 8mo ago

Guatemala is a great place to visit if you want to experience it first hand. Lake Atitlan is breathtaking.