discipline posted:chosen (white) people who hide behind a mandate from god and a giant advanced military, second largest f-16 fleet in the world, love bombing muslims and being hyper aggressive yet LGBTQI-positive (in certain neighborhoods of tel aviv)... just like us!!
It literally makes my skin crawl to see those types called "white"
Myfanwy posted:everything in that post is true
you want to fight about it
does all of your knowledge of new world colonization come from reading a jared diamond book
TROT_CUMLOVER posted:Myfanwy posted:everything in that post is true
you want to fight about itdoes all of your knowledge of new world colonization come from reading a jared diamond book
I've never read a jared diamond book, but 90% seems like an accepted figure
If you mean the thing about oklahoma, i meant going into an officially designated part of a state with an entire recognized government that was fully populated, and taking any land you can take. instead of just taking land from savages in the savage land in a perceived wilderness
Edited by Myfanwy ()
satisfy their appetite for genocide
they proliferated like vermin
so now we are millions
Ironicwarcriminal posted:It’s literally no different than your parents decided to move to Arizona
agreed
Throughout the Americas, military invasions resulted in the direct massacres of huge numbers of people and the unleashing of bacteria and viruses for which the natives had little or no acquired resistance. In most of what is now the United States - excluding California and the Southwest - the dynamic interaction between military and microbial destruction (in different combinations from time to time and from place to place) was sufficient to lay waste almost an entire continent’s indigenous inhabitants. In California and the Southwest, however, as in the Caribbean and Meso- and South America (where at least 90 percent of the Western Hemisphere’s population lived) another deadly factor was added. There, survivors of the mass murders and the epidemics commonly were herded together into densely populated congregacións where they either starved in squalor or were worked to death as hired-out slaves in labor camps, in mines, or on plantations - all of which, of course, were hothouses of pestilence and fatal violence. It was under these constantly interacting conditions of direct slaughter, disease, and forced labor—combined, as in the Nazi concentration and death camps, with the consequential reduction of live birth rates to far below replacement levels - that the indigenous populations of what are now Chile and Peru, for example, were reduced collectively by 95 percent or more, from somewhere between 9 million and 14 million people to barely 500,000, before the holocaust subsided.
TROT_CUMLOVER posted:Despite frequent undocumented assertions that disease was responsible for the great majority of indigenous deaths in the Americas, there does not exist a single scholarly work that even pretends to demonstrate this claim on the basis of solid evidence. And that is because there is no such evidence, anywhere. The supposed truism that more native people died from disease than from direct face-to-face killing or from gross mistreatment or other concomitant derivatives of that brutality such as starvation, exposure, exhaustion, or despair is nothing more than a scholarly article of faith. It seems quite possible that deaths from disease may have exceeded those deriving from any other single cause, but the plain fact of the matter is that we have no way of ever determining individual degrees of responsibility for the many and various and overlapping factors that were involved in the native peoples’ destruction. Because the devastation was so enormous and so complete, few technical demographic details of this sort exist in the historical record. Indeed, if anything is certain regarding this matter it is that most of those tens of millions of deaths - from the islands of the Caribbean to the high country of Mexico, then north and south throughout two huge continents - were in fact caused by intertwined and interacting combinations of lethal agents, combinations that took different forms in different locales.
Throughout the Americas, military invasions resulted in the direct massacres of huge numbers of people and the unleashing of bacteria and viruses for which the natives had little or no acquired resistance. In most of what is now the United States - excluding California and the Southwest - the dynamic interaction between military and microbial destruction (in different combinations from time to time and from place to place) was sufficient to lay waste almost an entire continent’s indigenous inhabitants. In California and the Southwest, however, as in the Caribbean and Meso- and South America (where at least 90 percent of the Western Hemisphere’s population lived) another deadly factor was added. There, survivors of the mass murders and the epidemics commonly were herded together into densely populated congregacións where they either starved in squalor or were worked to death as hired-out slaves in labor camps, in mines, or on plantations - all of which, of course, were hothouses of pestilence and fatal violence. It was under these constantly interacting conditions of direct slaughter, disease, and forced labor—combined, as in the Nazi concentration and death camps, with the consequential reduction of live birth rates to far below replacement levels - that the indigenous populations of what are now Chile and Peru, for example, were reduced collectively by 95 percent or more, from somewhere between 9 million and 14 million people to barely 500,000, before the holocaust subsided.
Estimates pre columbian population -- post columbian population before any large scale conflict are what 90% comes from as far as I remember. Either way a ton of people died and left areas that were full when they were originally explored empty once more people came to settle, which is very different from israel/palestine at the start
Ironicwarcriminal posted:you're French aren't you? i don't think you understand the Anglo Settler Pathology
I'm french but also an official member of a real usa native american tribe with a holographic membership card which means that I literally cannot be wrong
Myfanwy posted:TROT_CUMLOVER posted:
Despite frequent undocumented assertions that disease was responsible for the great majority of indigenous deaths in the Americas, there does not exist a single scholarly work that even pretends to demonstrate this claim on the basis of solid evidence. And that is because there is no such evidence, anywhere. The supposed truism that more native people died from disease than from direct face-to-face killing or from gross mistreatment or other concomitant derivatives of that brutality such as starvation, exposure, exhaustion, or despair is nothing more than a scholarly article of faith. It seems quite possible that deaths from disease may have exceeded those deriving from any other single cause, but the plain fact of the matter is that we have no way of ever determining individual degrees of responsibility for the many and various and overlapping factors that were involved in the native peoples’ destruction. Because the devastation was so enormous and so complete, few technical demographic details of this sort exist in the historical record. Indeed, if anything is certain regarding this matter it is that most of those tens of millions of deaths - from the islands of the Caribbean to the high country of Mexico, then north and south throughout two huge continents - were in fact caused by intertwined and interacting combinations of lethal agents, combinations that took different forms in different locales.
Throughout the Americas, military invasions resulted in the direct massacres of huge numbers of people and the unleashing of bacteria and viruses for which the natives had little or no acquired resistance. In most of what is now the United States - excluding California and the Southwest - the dynamic interaction between military and microbial destruction (in different combinations from time to time and from place to place) was sufficient to lay waste almost an entire continent’s indigenous inhabitants. In California and the Southwest, however, as in the Caribbean and Meso- and South America (where at least 90 percent of the Western Hemisphere’s population lived) another deadly factor was added. There, survivors of the mass murders and the epidemics commonly were herded together into densely populated congregacións where they either starved in squalor or were worked to death as hired-out slaves in labor camps, in mines, or on plantations - all of which, of course, were hothouses of pestilence and fatal violence. It was under these constantly interacting conditions of direct slaughter, disease, and forced labor—combined, as in the Nazi concentration and death camps, with the consequential reduction of live birth rates to far below replacement levels - that the indigenous populations of what are now Chile and Peru, for example, were reduced collectively by 95 percent or more, from somewhere between 9 million and 14 million people to barely 500,000, before the holocaust subsided.
Estimates pre columbian population -- post columbian population before any large scale conflict are what 90% comes from as far as I remember. Either way a ton of people died and left areas that were full when they were originally explored empty once more people came to settle, which is very different from israel/palestine at the start
Almost like the populations of the Americas and Australia suffered some sort of catastrophe huh
The life expectancy of a Native American man is 71 years, six below the expectancy of a white male in the United States. Women fare at a similar level, with their death rate growing 20% over fifteen years of national decline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Palestinian_territories#Life_expectancy_at_birth
male: 72.97 years
female: 77.17 years (2011 est.)
Studies of North American tribes in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have found similar local variability. Geographer Jody Decker shows how a single epidemic among the northern Plains tribes had disparate effects, "even for contiguous Native groups," depending on "population densities, transmission rates, immunity, subsistence patterns, seasonality and geographic location." Drought and famine left the Hopis particularly susceptible to an epidemic in 1780. The Mandans suffered severely from smallpox in 1837: famine since the previous winter had left them malnourished, and cold, rainy weather confined them to their crowded lodges. When smallpox struck, they had both high levels of exposure and low levels of resistance. As Clyde Dollar concludes, "It is no wonder the death rate reached such tragically high levels." Once North American tribes came under the care of the federal governments in the United States and Canada, they often suffered from malnutrition and poor sanitation. Mary-Ellen Kelm, who has studied the fates of the Indians of British Columbia, concludes that "poor Aboriginal health was not inevitable"; instead, it was the product of specific government policies.
Comparative studies have particular power for demonstrating the local specificity of depopulation. Stephen Kunitz has shown that Hawaiians suffered more severely than Samoans, a consequence of different patterns of land seizure by colonizing Europeans. The Navajo did better than the neighboring Hopi because their pastoral lifestyle adapted more easily to the challenges imposed by American settlers. In these cases similar indigenous populations encountered similar colonizers, with very different outcomes: "The kind of colonial contact that occurred was of enormous importance." Kunitz's cases demonstrate that "diseases rarely act as independent forces but instead are shaped by the different contexts in which they occur."
Paralleling this work, some historians have begun to provide integrated analyses of the many factors that shaped demographic outcomes. Any factor that causes mental or physical stress—displacement, warfare, drought, destruction of crops, soil depletion, overwork, slavery, malnutrition, social and economic chaos—can increase susceptibility to disease. These same social and environmental factors also decrease fertility, preventing a population from replacing its losses. The magnitude of mortality depended on characteristics of precontact American Indian populations (size, density, social structure, nutritional status) and on the patterns of European colonization (frequency and magnitude of contact, invasiveness of the European colonial regime). As anthropologist Clark Spencer Larsen argues, scholars must "move away from monocausal explanations of population change to reach a broad-based understanding of decline and extinction of Native American groups after 1492."
Is it possible to quantify the variability, to delineate the relative contribution of potential genetic, developmental, environmental, and social variables? Detailed studies have documented "considerable regional variability" in American Indian responses to European arrival. Many American Indian groups declined for a century and then began to recover. Some, such as the natives of the Bahamas, declined to extinction. Others, such as the Navajo, experienced steady population growth after European arrival. More precise data exist for select groups. Newson, for instance, has compiled data about die-off ratios, the proportion of those who died to those who survived. While die-off ratios were as high as 58:1 along the Peruvian coast, they were lower (3.4:1) in the Peruvian highlands. In Mexico they varied between 47.8:1 and 6.6:1, again depending on elevation. They ranged from 5.1:1 in Chiapas to 24:1 in Honduras and 40:1 in Nicaragua. Mortality rates from European diseases among South Pacific islanders ranged between 3 percent and 25 percent for measles, and 2.5 percent to 25 percent for influenza. Such variability among relatively homogeneous populations, with die-off ratios differing by an order of magnitude, most likely reflects the contingency of social variables. But most of these numbers are, admittedly, enormous: a 4:1 die-off ratio indicates that 75 percent died. Why did so many populations suffer such high baseline mortality? Does this reflect a shared genetic vulnerability, whose final intensity was shaped by social variables? Or does it reflect a shared social experience, of pre-existing nutritional stress exacerbated by the widespread chaos of encounter and colonization? Both positions are defensible.
The variability of outcomes reflected in the different fates of different Indian populations provides powerful evidence against the inevitability of mortality. It undermines popular claims, made most influentially by Henry Dobyns, that American Indians suffered universal mortality from infectious diseases. Noble David Cook, for instance, argues that the vulnerability was so general that Indians died equally whatever the colonial context, "no matter which European territory was involved, regardless of the location of the region. It seemed to make no difference what type of colonial regime was created." Such assertions, which reduce the depopulation of the Americas to an inevitable encounter between powerful diseases and vulnerable peoples, do not match the contingency of the archaeological and historical records. These, instead, tell a story of populations made vulnerable.
Edited by TROT_CUMLOVER ()
TROT_CUMLOVER posted:the idea that "welp disease just happened nothing could be done there were no intervening factors sorry native broskis" is one of the more resilient historical myths
i dont think anyone's actually saying that. i guess the inevitable counterfactual is "how many native americans would have died if the spanish had turned right round in 1519 and gone home and stayed there"
getfiscal posted:that same professor was like okay folks in medieval christian times the church wasn't allowed to charge interest. but instead the church would charge a certain levy on land usage and so on. guess what, that levy? corresponds to a market interest rate. and yes when there were shocks then the interest rate changed accordingly. markets in everything people. and i thought that was cool although i had no way to know if it was real.
let's buy this guy an account
Goethestein posted:yeah the idea that there were tens of millions of people in america at the time is just a leftist piety with no real backing in oral history, food production, corpses, or known hunter-gatherer population densities
lots of native american groups practiced sedentary agriculture and there's pretty good evidence for the size of their settlements, caloric budgets etc
Goethestein posted:thats nonsense.
lol ok
littlegreenpills posted:i dont think anyone's actually saying that. i guess the inevitable counterfactual is "how many native americans would have died if the spanish had turned right round in 1519 and gone home and stayed there"
a line was drawn between disease and imperial policy, as though their interaction didn't strongly influence the outcomes, right in the first sentence of the post: "america was 95% depopulated by disease that was probably spread before any attempts at settlement were made, instead of depopulated by running into town with guns and throwing old men in wells and shooting anyone who didn't run away"
anyway the amount of deaths attributable to disease is less relevant than the fact that most native civilizations were ultimately totally unable to recover from these epidemics the way, say, europe did after the black death because of the imposition of european colonial patterns, warfare, forced relocation and concentration, economic exploitation, and all the other trappings of imperialism.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:alright now this is an interesting argument. Shennong, so did native Americans practice sedentary agriculture or not?
where do you think the three sisters come from
Myfanwy posted:It literally makes my skin crawl to see those types called "white"
jews are white you fool
gyrofry posted:I liked his article about why Latvian girls are scientifically proven to be the hottest
lol this is a real thing. amazing, amazing
Jared Diamond also have a glorious combover.
EmanuelaOrlandi posted:Myfanwy posted:It literally makes my skin crawl to see those types called "white"
jews are white you fool
Since WHEN
- Beautiful
Noble
Courageous
Kind
Wise
Tall
Anyone who doesn't fit those is probably just a swamp hominid artefact population remnant
shennong posted:
cool yeah, a drawing, convincing