5 ms·

When you think about the differences between human results of North American vs. South American colonization by Europeans, it becomes clear that there was somet

by turar 12y ago

When you think about the differences between human results of North American vs. South American colonization by Europeans, it becomes clear that there was something more at play than just the clean and guilt-free narrative of "disease wiped out the Natives" that is being taught in North American schools. Today, only in the US and Canada, i.e. Anglo-Saxon colonies, the Native populations are dismally low. Just across the border in Mexico you already start seeing largely Native and mixed Native-European populations thriving, instead of being wiped out. The same story continues throughout Central and Latin Americas.

rthomas6 12y ago
Oh, there's no doubt that we wiped out the Native Americans on purpose. Systematically. Over several hundred years. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But even in that effort, disease played a part through purposeful infection.
- ende 12y ago
  You were there?
  - rthomas6 12y ago
    No... but other people were, and those people wrote first-hand accounts of what happened. In history those are called "primary sources". That's how history is determined. And I don't know what else to call the depicted slaughter, the wars, and the forcible relocation to useless lands other than systematic eradication.
    - ende 12y ago
      That wasn't a comment about your account of history but rather your involvement in it. To put another way, would someone who is half-native hald-european be half-victim half-responsible, or is it just ridiculous to attribute blame for periods of history through descent?
benbreen 12y ago
Mann talks about this in the book version of 1491, as does the historian David Noble Cook in Born to Die: Disease and New World Conquest. Neither are trying to claim (at all) that the enormous population declines of the early modern period were due only to disease, or to minimize the role of mass murders, intentional starvation, wars, etc. But this comment fails to consider the demography of the New World prior to 1492. Mesoamerica and the Andes (modern day Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, Ecuador, etc.) were home to widespread agricultural civilizations with settled urban populations. In fact, pre-Columbian Mexico City was one of the largest urban areas in the world (early conquistadors described it as like Venice, but bigger). Granted, agricultural societies existed in North America too, but aside from the pueblos in New Mexico and some urbanized communities associated with the Mississippi Valley Civilization and its offshoots, the population density and urbanization didn't compare to Mesoamerica and the Andes. This has a lot to do with why present-day Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, etc. have large indigenous communities relative to Canada and the US: there were higher populations there to begin with. It doesn't necessarily mean that the proportion lost to disease and warfare was any less.
- te_chris 12y ago
  The history of Mexico and mesoamerica in general is fascinating. I was lucky enough to spend a week in D.F. (Mexico City) in January and I fell in love with the city. I highly recommend to anyone who hasn't been to go, it's such a great city. To bring this back to the parent comment: The anthropology museum [1] in D.F is incredible both in depth and scale. It covers the history of the city and area so thoroughly. I had no idea about the extent to which civilization had persisted in Mesoamerica before I spent half a day wandering around this museum. It's such a fascinating history and it's available to see right there through the recovered artifacts and the current ruin sites both in D.F and just outside (such as Teotihuacan [2]). Oh, and if you go stay here: http://theredtreehouse.com http://theredtreehouse.com [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museo_Nacional_de_Antropolog%C3%ADa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museo_Nacional_de_Antropolog%C3... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teotihuacan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teotihuacan
  - WildUtah 12y ago
jghn 12y ago
I took his comment to mean that it the annihilation of the natives was a much easier task due to the disease, not that it was simply the disease.
SiVal 12y ago
You claim that the US and Canada are synonymous with "Anglo-Saxon" colonies. How do you explain the place names in Silicon Valley: San Francisco, San Mateo, San Carlos, Palo Alto, Los Gatos, Los Altos, San Jose...? How do you explain Canada's endless "dual language" bickering? Is that Anglo speakers vs. Saxon speakers? The United States was formed long after most of the plagues that devastated the native North Americans, yet it was the US government that bought the vast Louisiana Purchase territory. From whom? And bought Alaska? From whom? These places had quite a low density of native populations long before they became "Anglo-Saxon".
- Spooky23 12y ago
  Louisiana was purchased from France... Whose claim to the land was tenuous at best. The genius of the purchase was that it kept Napoleon away.
- turar 12y ago
  California was part of Mexico until 1846. Quebec was part of New France until 1759. I'm not sure what your point is. Today, combined Native and mixed-Native population in the US is less than 2%. Compare that with Mexico's 88%. It just doesn't add up.
  - SiVal 12y ago
    Yet you claim, "Today, only in the US and Canada, i.e. Anglo-Saxon colonies...." How could you not understand a point that you are restating? Today's US and Canada are obviously not just the "Anglo-Saxon colonies".
    - turar 12y ago
      Ah, so you took offense with "today"? Okay, read it as "former Anglo-Saxon colonies". The larger point remains.
      - SiVal 12y ago
        "only in the US and Canada, i.e. Anglo-Saxon colonies...." Unless I'm mistaken, you claim you are trying to make a point about North America, not the East Coast of North America, and you insist on referring to places such as the vast American Southwest, the Louisiana Territory, Quebec, and so on as, "Okay, read it as 'former Anglo-Saxon colonies'". You can't see anything wrong with your point? Clearly, I have to try something else, so does your point about Anglo-Saxon colonies and native populations require us to characterize California and Quebec as "former Anglo-Saxon colonies" or not? If it were me, I'd give up the fashionable notion that this is about nasty Anglo-Saxons and a phenomenon only seen in the US and Canada and take a closer look at North American former colonies like Massachusetts (English) and Quebec (French), and almost as large South American former colonies like Argentina (Spanish) and Brazil (Portuguese), where the native population is a tiny fraction of the overall population, and compare them to those countries in the middle that still have a majority native population, and ask yourself what the first group have in common with each other that differs from the latter group. It isn't Anglo-Saxon-ness.
Spooky23 12y ago
Intermarriage was socially acceptable to the Spainards. They also needed a labor force for working the mines, so don't be too sympathetic towards them... They killed millions. The populations of Indians in the US/Canada were smaller so the French/English pushed the natives out, while maintaining a buffer of undesirable poor Europeans on the frontier.

by turar 12y ago

rthomas6 12y ago

Oh, there's no doubt that we wiped out the Native Americans on purpose. Systematically. Over several hundred years. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But even in that effort, disease played a part through purposeful infection.

ende 12y ago
You were there?
- rthomas6 12y ago
  No... but other people were, and those people wrote first-hand accounts of what happened. In history those are called "primary sources". That's how history is determined. And I don't know what else to call the depicted slaughter, the wars, and the forcible relocation to useless lands other than systematic eradication.
  - ende 12y ago
    That wasn't a comment about your account of history but rather your involvement in it. To put another way, would someone who is half-native hald-european be half-victim half-responsible, or is it just ridiculous to attribute blame for periods of history through descent?

benbreen 12y ago

Mann talks about this in the book version of 1491, as does the historian David Noble Cook in Born to Die: Disease and New World Conquest. Neither are trying to claim (at all) that the enormous population declines of the early modern period were due only to disease, or to minimize the role of mass murders, intentional starvation, wars, etc. But this comment fails to consider the demography of the New World prior to 1492. Mesoamerica and the Andes (modern day Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, Ecuador, etc.) were home to widespread agricultural civilizations with settled urban populations. In fact, pre-Columbian Mexico City was one of the largest urban areas in the world (early conquistadors described it as like Venice, but bigger). Granted, agricultural societies existed in North America too, but aside from the pueblos in New Mexico and some urbanized communities associated with the Mississippi Valley Civilization and its offshoots, the population density and urbanization didn't compare to Mesoamerica and the Andes. This has a lot to do with why present-day Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, etc. have large indigenous communities relative to Canada and the US: there were higher populations there to begin with. It doesn't necessarily mean that the proportion lost to disease and warfare was any less.

te_chris 12y ago
The history of Mexico and mesoamerica in general is fascinating. I was lucky enough to spend a week in D.F. (Mexico City) in January and I fell in love with the city. I highly recommend to anyone who hasn't been to go, it's such a great city. To bring this back to the parent comment: The anthropology museum [1] in D.F is incredible both in depth and scale. It covers the history of the city and area so thoroughly. I had no idea about the extent to which civilization had persisted in Mesoamerica before I spent half a day wandering around this museum. It's such a fascinating history and it's available to see right there through the recovered artifacts and the current ruin sites both in D.F and just outside (such as Teotihuacan [2]). Oh, and if you go stay here: http://theredtreehouse.com http://theredtreehouse.com [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museo_Nacional_de_Antropolog%C3%ADa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museo_Nacional_de_Antropolog%C3... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teotihuacan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teotihuacan
- WildUtah 12y ago

jghn 12y ago

I took his comment to mean that it the annihilation of the natives was a much easier task due to the disease, not that it was simply the disease.

SiVal 12y ago

You claim that the US and Canada are synonymous with "Anglo-Saxon" colonies. How do you explain the place names in Silicon Valley: San Francisco, San Mateo, San Carlos, Palo Alto, Los Gatos, Los Altos, San Jose...? How do you explain Canada's endless "dual language" bickering? Is that Anglo speakers vs. Saxon speakers? The United States was formed long after most of the plagues that devastated the native North Americans, yet it was the US government that bought the vast Louisiana Purchase territory. From whom? And bought Alaska? From whom? These places had quite a low density of native populations long before they became "Anglo-Saxon".

Spooky23 12y ago
Louisiana was purchased from France... Whose claim to the land was tenuous at best. The genius of the purchase was that it kept Napoleon away.
turar 12y ago
California was part of Mexico until 1846. Quebec was part of New France until 1759. I'm not sure what your point is. Today, combined Native and mixed-Native population in the US is less than 2%. Compare that with Mexico's 88%. It just doesn't add up.
- SiVal 12y ago
  Yet you claim, "Today, only in the US and Canada, i.e. Anglo-Saxon colonies...." How could you not understand a point that you are restating? Today's US and Canada are obviously not just the "Anglo-Saxon colonies".
  - turar 12y ago
    Ah, so you took offense with "today"? Okay, read it as "former Anglo-Saxon colonies". The larger point remains.
    - SiVal 12y ago
      "only in the US and Canada, i.e. Anglo-Saxon colonies...." Unless I'm mistaken, you claim you are trying to make a point about North America, not the East Coast of North America, and you insist on referring to places such as the vast American Southwest, the Louisiana Territory, Quebec, and so on as, "Okay, read it as 'former Anglo-Saxon colonies'". You can't see anything wrong with your point? Clearly, I have to try something else, so does your point about Anglo-Saxon colonies and native populations require us to characterize California and Quebec as "former Anglo-Saxon colonies" or not? If it were me, I'd give up the fashionable notion that this is about nasty Anglo-Saxons and a phenomenon only seen in the US and Canada and take a closer look at North American former colonies like Massachusetts (English) and Quebec (French), and almost as large South American former colonies like Argentina (Spanish) and Brazil (Portuguese), where the native population is a tiny fraction of the overall population, and compare them to those countries in the middle that still have a majority native population, and ask yourself what the first group have in common with each other that differs from the latter group. It isn't Anglo-Saxon-ness.

Spooky23 12y ago

Intermarriage was socially acceptable to the Spainards. They also needed a labor force for working the mines, so don't be too sympathetic towards them... They killed millions. The populations of Indians in the US/Canada were smaller so the French/English pushed the natives out, while maintaining a buffer of undesirable poor Europeans on the frontier.