Were native americans doomed from the start? Even if european colonization had never happened. Someone from the old world would've eventually discovered the americas at some point and even limited contact would've caused them to be infected by diseases which they had no resistance to so unless they somehow managed to remain isolated for the rest of eternity their fate was inevitable.
Doomed?
the black death didnt doom europe
God should have made a singular smallpox blanket drift on a raft from Europe to Cuba in the 1200s so that the social organization could adapt to the decline in population before contact.
>old world
>>717169The Plague in Europe?
>>717197When did the other half of the Earth form then?
>>717192it didn't because europe managed to have a large population already, and was able to recover by the time of the rape of the americas
watch. OP gonna say savages next.
I think they would've fared better if agriculture had more time to spread among them so they'd have a larger pre-existing population.
But yeah, anybody who missed out on smoothly (rather than abruptly) becoming a part of the Afro-Eurasian genetic matrix where immune system antibodies were routinely exchanged between populations was fucked.
>>717210Woke antagonism to terms that make perfect sense. New as in New to the Europe, who became the rulers and dominant inhabitants.
>>71721
>it didn't because europe managed to have a large population already
What does that even mean, France had 20 million people before the plague and reached that population only in the 17th century again.
>>717221The Americas aren't majority European descendants.
>>717232is every country in europe france? and the countries that mattered were portugal and spain, who had about 12 million, then if you count the italian states (which i'll assume to be 6 million people) and france, that's a whole 22 million, as france had 16 million people living in it
>>717239France had rhe majority of Europe's population until the 20th century. Spain and Portugal were and still are fucking empty.
>>717198What are you talking about?
>>717241no? unless you think russia+ all the states around it are not european, germany had more people than france in the 19th century
>>717244God are you retarded.
The whole of the HRE only had 12 million people, England barely three million.
>>717244Also why are you pushing the timeline back, cope more. Let's pull up modern demographics, shall we, with Nigeria having 200 million people 😱😱
>historical determinism for western euros (it was inevitable)
>also constant cope about how Hitler could've won or how the Byzantine Empire could be saved
lol
>>717243Well it wasnt 90% like in the americas.
>>717246you said specifically "up until the 20th century" (?) then i demonstrated this is not the case, and yes the population in the americas is gonna be way smaller than europe, about 2 regions had large city centers and thus, large populations, the rest were mostly basic hunter-gatherers, so even spain and portugal (which i mentioned, because you know, they actually did a lot of the colonization) were certainly equal or enough, not to mention backup from other states like venice who operated mercenary armies
>>717247you literally said "France had rhe majority of Europe's population until the 20th century" (false, that was russia) and now you're going back on it? look at a fucking population statistic in the 19th century
>>717253my dearest friend it didn't happen because europe already had large population centers when much of the americas didn't, the fact that portugal, spain and some others were able to annihilate most indigenous populations in north america, then in south america (the more populous continent) annihilate half of them, is because these continents didn't have large states or even large armies, they were either like the incas who could stand a chance but were weakened by internal factors or they were small ethnic groups with at most a militia
>>717256Stop moving the goalpost faggit, the argument started when you denied that Europe
>>717216 lost the majority of their population to the Black Death
>it didn't because europe managed to have a large population already, and was able to recover by the time of the rape of the americasWhich is wrong because
>>717232 France only recovered their population by the 17th century, and France is the perfect example as France
>>717246 was the largest European country up until the industrial revolution.
>>717262didn't do that, and france's population by 1500 was around 16 million, and also fucking proof-read your posts before posting them for fuck's sake man, i shouldn't have to mention that france didn't have as high of a population as even germany, or barely above italy, but back on this point, the aztec city centers were few and far between, and clearly the population wasn't that loyal to them, they let the spanish in and did basically nothing to help their state
>>717263which estimates does this graph use? modern estimates gravitate to about 50 million for both north america and south america, and a recent estimate (from about 2003) states that mexico probably had about 16-18 million people, which is about as much as france in the same time, so you're gonna have to actually field an argument that's not just "but what about france?" when the fact that europe in total had at least 30 million more (europe had about 80 million or so around the same time), now obviously not all of that population matters, portugal later on ruled over a vast colonial empire with only 8 million, the netherlands with about 10 million ruled over tens of millions, but how many people live in urban centers matters, a lot actually
>>717274>but how many people live in urban centers matters, a lot actuallyUrbanization rate of Europe in the 15th century was only 9%.
>>717276i'm not claiming it does, just that it was more centralized than the polities it was colonizing in the americas, which for the most part were ethnic confederations, and rarely something you could call a country, europe had plenty of those even in the decentralized states
>>717279So what is your point then? People win wars because of the level of centralization? I think the lack of pike, shot, horses and steel was a bigger factor, because conflicts like you've described happened many times in Europe, just look at the long list of successor wars that didn't devolve in a foreign country starting a colony. England and the War of the Roses, for example, which didn't kill off 90% of the population.
>>717281well those diseases didn't involve major plagues, the war of the roses for the most part was a standard succession war whereas what happened in the americas was a wave of soldiers, not all spanish or portuguese, who recruited locals, beat and intimidated those who resisted to become christians or at the very least serve the spanish/portuguese, then because of the extreme separation of the immune system of these places, plus the fact that domesticated animals like in europe, africa, asia, didn't really exist in the americas preventing a reverse-epidemic of happening to the settlers, obliterated a large amount of indigenous people which allowed the spanish and portuguese to start rapidly extracting wealth from the region to pour into europe which started the industrial revolution and the like, it was a real unfortunate game of circumstance for the amerindians
>>717303>people which allowed the spanish and portuguese to start rapidly extracting wealth from the region to pour into europe which started the industrial revolution and the likeThe industrial revolution didnt start in spain or portugal. It was the opposite their economies were actually extremely backwards and undeveloped because of the influx gold and silver from the america it meant they didnt need to develop sophistaced urbanized and industrialized economies to make survive and their local industries basically entirely dissapeared as they couldnt compete with the cheap influx of raw materials from the americas.
>>717274>modern estimates gravitate to about 50 million for both north america and south america,>when the fact that europe in total had at least 30 million more (europe had about 80 million or so around the same time),The estimates range wildly up to 100 million, as they are, you know, estimates.
>>717305here's the thing, spain and portugal weren't "backwards", underdeveloped sure, but there was abundant wealth, but not abundant development, and i don't make this clear but i don't mean "the industrial revolution started in spain and portugal" i mean "the industrial revolution started because of spain and portugal colonizing the americas" which is a different although similar sentence, merchants who were from across europe (particularly italian, english, dutch, etc) operated in these colonies, some established their own, but they brought immense wealth to europe which was used to fund universities, public infrastructure programs, etc, undeniably as a result of the major wealth influx coming in from the americas from both slave labor, indentured servants and so on, a similar thing had happened in europe when the roman empire established large trade routes as a result of wealth from former carthaginian lands, used to do a similar thing.
>>717306>The estimates range wildly up to 100 million, as they are, you know, estimates.yes, which is why i put "more modern estimates" and not just "estimates" since all estimates since the one that shows 100+ million people don't corroborate it, i highly, highly doubt the population was 100 million pre-colonization, there just isn't enough good evidence, but i can believe the more recent estimates, which have the benefit of better scholarship and better evidence
You see if the Nasrid Kingdom of Granada managed to reconquer Iberia and destroy the crusader nazi statesof Spain and Portugal the native americans would have survived
>>717312And it could have happened if the Ottomans helped them
>Cocoliztli
No one knows what the cause of this was. It could've been a native pathogen, if there was even a single pathogen and not different ones. Also, the death tolls of the epidemics were definitely exacerbated by the encomienda system which forced natives into grinding hard labor and poverty, leading to social murder on a continental scale, social murder which worked through many different mechanisms including but not limited to disease.
>>717317>No one knows what the cause of this was. It could've been a native pathogen,It was salmonella and it was brought by Europeans.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/106740v2.full >>717219> if agriculture had more time to spread among them so they'd have a larger pre-existing population.???
most people in the americas were agriculturalists
It wasn't a superplague, diseases can be managed even in pre industrial society, it was so deadly because colonization was actively destroying their social organization.
It's kinda like how diseases get worse during war
>>717323No? Only Mesoamerica, the Andes and Mississippi had widespread agriculture.
>>717279>their fate was inevitable.Many scenarios could've led to Native Americans surviving and no major European colonization. For example if simply the Vikings had introduced anything in the northeast, contact with East Asian castaways in the Pacific northwest, if the Spanish had simply run into more warlike peoples like the Calusa or the Mississippians instead of the Kalinago, if the Mayas had killed Cortes during the battle of Centla as happened with a previous Spanish expedition, if the Tlaxcalans had killed the Spanish instead as was their original intention instead of allying with them, etc…
>>717327Keyword here is "widespread".
>>717303>start rapidly extracting wealth from the region to pour into europe which started the industrial revolution and the likeBut the industrial revolution started in England, not Iberia. Spain and Portugal's economies collapsed of inflation because they imported too much silver and gold.
>>717332Which line up with the exceptions I provided.
>>717335We can argue all day about this but the sheer fact is that a lot of areas in the Americas were under-populated. Idk if it's because agriculture was less intensive in these areas but they still were.
"Uh, they all just died from disease, europeans didnt even do nuffin" is basically genocide denial
>>717331if you view it on a tiny scale yes, but i already gave a more in depth explanation here
>>717310 >>717336>underpopulatedYou realize that plagues prove a high population density? Also look at the OP picture, it shows that Mexico had 20 million people
>>717356What do you mean tiny scale? Spain and Portugal didn’t have any industry, even the Dutch were a manufacturing centre, lmao
>>717370as in the most basic rewards from american colonization, also the dutch pioneered industry, but it was the english that mastered it, same is true for other countries that were merchants in those territories
>>717369if you believe a 60 year old population estimate, yeah
>>717377and we should believe your population estimate because…??? lmao
>>717369We have evidence and ruins of high population settlements in those three areas I mentioned. We don't have that many for the others.
>You realize that plagues prove a high population density?Yes, and there are relatively more reports of widespread epidemics in those three regions than the rest, especially Mesoamerica. That can be interpreted as those regions having either more plagues or that they were the only ones that were notable enough to record.
>>717385newer data and better methods? but yeah let's just go for the most sensational numbers
leftypol is ruined because of people who dont know enough abt a subject and talk abt it like theyre professionals. this dude is seriously claiming the americas had no urban centers
>>717442>>717450You realize how big Mexico and the Andes are? Those areas that you described are as big as Western Europe…
Its like saying Western Europe didn't have urban centres because Mesopotamia had farming earlier and Egypt has a higher population density, lmaoo
>>717450newer estimates have consistently trended upwards
>>717515no? all of them predict a lower total americas population than the 1963 one used in the OP image, they all tend to predict about 50 million in total
>>717514i'm not saying they didn't have urban centers, or even advanced towns, that's an insane claim, instead what i'm claiming is easier to get, the urban centers in question were less of the continent than they were in europe, and not organized as much, and without many loyalists
Unique IPs: 26