4 ms·

> the European explorers and colonists did commit horrific crimes against humanity not only horrific but the biggest hollocaust in the entire human history, w

by 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.
    - luqtas 8mo ago
      source of this claim? because when we type about "disease" on the context of the America holocaust, we are typing about colonizers actively spreading disease as biological weapons {0} {0} https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41109292/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41109292/
      - Amezarak 8mo ago
        High end estimates of people killed due to the deliberate spread of disease are dozens to hundreds. The pre-real-contact wave was obviously many orders of magnitude more deadly. Even your own link mentions one reason it was ineffective was prior exposure.
        luqtas 8mo ago
        the vast majority of indigenous people died on the 1° 100 years of colonization (from 1500 (when America was "found") -> 1600); the number goes up to 80 million people dead... the paper i mentioned says partial immunity didn't taking effect on a war past 1700! do you really think pox wasn't abused the time they were killing millions of natives per year? that's what i'm reffering to, not (somehow) recent wars
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.

by luqtas 8mo ago

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.
  - luqtas 8mo ago
    source of this claim? because when we type about "disease" on the context of the America holocaust, we are typing about colonizers actively spreading disease as biological weapons {0} {0} https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41109292/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41109292/
    - Amezarak 8mo ago
      High end estimates of people killed due to the deliberate spread of disease are dozens to hundreds. The pre-real-contact wave was obviously many orders of magnitude more deadly. Even your own link mentions one reason it was ineffective was prior exposure.
      - luqtas 8mo ago
        the vast majority of indigenous people died on the 1° 100 years of colonization (from 1500 (when America was "found") -> 1600); the number goes up to 80 million people dead... the paper i mentioned says partial immunity didn't taking effect on a war past 1700! do you really think pox wasn't abused the time they were killing millions of natives per year? that's what i'm reffering to, not (somehow) recent wars

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.