Aside from the Germs they didn't know anything about, how many Indians did the European settlers really killed when they came over to America?
>implying the disease part was entirely on purpose
>>763562
Happy now?
>>763554
Wonder where they pulled that 100 million from?
The numbers killed in battle would have been insignificant compared to the number killed by more natural causes. Probably a few hundred thousand at most if you were to take every single early American battle at face value.
>>763554
roughly 50,000....
>>763554
why does he have green eyes?
>>764005
here are the 2 bloodiest battles (by far) of native/american conflict:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Clair's_Defeat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Horseshoe_Bend_%281814%29
around 1000 killed in both battles.
>>763554
That number is total bullshit
Everyone knows 900 million Natives were killed
>>764034
My point exactly, the Native North Americans were not populous. I think there were only a few million estimated to exist across the entire Northern US at the time of British colonisation (not including Canadians). They probably included fatalities from Central and South America from Spanish conquests in that number, though
>>764049
More like 10 gorillion
>>764049
Actually it was 1.2 billion. Pic related is Indian civilization pre-colonialism
>>763554
>muh 100 millions indians
Is this meme same tier with WE WUZ KANGZ ?
>>764049
this
never forget the 900 million, white devil. give us more land and exclusive casino rights, that land there happens to be a, uh, ancient indian ritual area yeah
>>764235
Nah, it's on >muh 6 million tier
>>764235
According to Procopius, Emperor Justinian killed a trillion innocent people.
I read an estimate that put the precolumbian population of the Americas at around 54 million, It mentioned higher and lower estimates too.
I doubt 100 million natives live in both Americas and the Carib, at a single point in time.
Pre Colombian civilizations are known for crop failure leading to civilization collapse.
>>764272
I'd say 80% of that population is found around mesoamerican empires, IE the Inca and Aztec +conglomerate tribes surrounding them. People conflate the huge ass number that died in the south american conquests from smallpox with north american Indian deaths. I sincerly doubt that there was more than 4 million native north americans in general, never mind the > 4 million death toll that is claimed.
>>763554
Why dont you check the census figures?
Majority of deaths were from disease. The purpose of colonisation was to either convert the populations, or profit from goods found there. Without the know-how of the natives the europeans wouldn't have access to beavers for example. Yet they claim that the disease was transferred to the natived on purpose, when germ theory hadn't even been discovered yet.
>>763979
Meso and south America. that's where all the real genocide/disease happened.
liberals just like to use the plains Indians for everything because they look pretty.
>>764817
Aztec wear was prettier (brighter colors and high quality ornaments), but they definitely practiced human sacrifice, so lose points on sympathy.
>>763554
>100 million
What? 100 million is the upper estimate for how many natives lived in all of the Americas in total. Considering the amount of natives still running around in South American I find it hard to believe.
>>764833
>so lose points on sympathy
exactly, i'm legit half native(purepecha indian)
but liberals don't give a shit that hundreds of thousands of aztecs/maya/inca/Mapuche were killed because weren't "noble savages" that "run with the wind and dance with the Buffalo"
>>764841
100 million is very high, id say in the U.S. and Canada their was only 1-2 million people, 3 million would be way too much.
while in mexico their was maybe 20-25 million
and in all of south america their was a lot of people, like 40-60 million.
in total it would have been like 70-80 million people, with the majority in south america
The historical consensus was somewhere in the 15 million people for the entire Americas, but ever since history became infected by cultural marxism there has been a steady push to make estimates higher.
All in all, it doesn't matter.
>>764866
>The historical consensus was somewhere in the 15 million people for the entire Americas,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_Mexico
"At their peak, 350,000 Aztecs presided over a wealthy tribute-empire comprising around 10 million people, almost half of Mexico's then-estimated population of 24 million. "
>15 million people for the entire Americas
>>764874
And I can easily find quotes from Wikipedia putting the estimates at a wildly different number.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Population_overview
>Using an estimate of approximately 37 million people in 1492 (including 6 million in the Aztec Empire, 8 million in the Mayan States, 11 million in what is now Brazil, and 12 million in the Inca Empire),
Down to 6 million from 10 million.
This is why this debate is pointless. Estimates vary from 10 to 100 million. No one knows how many there were because they hadn't advanced enough to have reliable record keeping.
>>764186
nah mate. That's Dublin before the English got to it.
>>764888
>Estimates vary from 10 to 100 million.
it's not 100 million for sure.
if anything it's 50-60 million tops. lowest id say 15-20 million.
the cities of pre-Colombian america were far cleaner than those of Europe. urban hygiene must be taken into consideration
>>763554
Over the course of 400 years? probably <200,000 directly. The South/Meso Americans had ridiculously huge population centers, but its not like the Spanish and Portuguese stormed the cities. After diseases rampaged through the lands the people abandoned the cities, and the sudden de-urbanization led to rapid drops in birth rates, which in turn led to may groups' extinction.
>>764911
>the cities of pre-Colombian america were far cleaner than those of Europe.
They were also far emptier.
>>764914
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenochtitlan
"scholars believe Tenochtitlan to have been among the largest cities in the world at that time.[14] Compared to Europe, only Paris, Venice and Constantinople might have rivaled it. It was five times the size of the contemporary London"
sure.
>>764922
It was spread over a large geographical area, and its population density was very low. You are confirming what I'm saying.
It was basically a big spread out village.
>>764912
>Over the course of 400 years? probably 200,000 directly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Tenochtitlan
>Aztec casualties
>100,000 warriors
>100,000 civilians
it's safe to far it was far more than 200 thousand.
>>764932
Once again with the wikipedia meme.
There isn't even a citation on that 100 000 claim.
I know I probably won't change your mind, but you are a gigantic moron if you take those figures at face value.
>>764936
>>764942
alright let me just spend an hour on research to find multiple sources that agree that their were at least 200 thousand people living in Tenochtitlan in the 1500's
would you like me to show you every website i find that has that number? or does that not count because "we weren't their man, we can't know"
>>764949
>alright let me just spend an hour on research to find multiple sources that agree that their were at least 200 thousand people living in Tenochtitlan in the 1500's
All right
No blogs by Aztlan nationalists, though. Scholarly sources only.
>
would you like me to show you every website i find that has that number? or does that not count because "we weren't their man, we can't know"
Indeed, we can't know. We can make educated guesses. Emphasis on educated.
Your position is basically "WE WUZ KANGZ N SHIT, WE WUZ HUGE CITIES N SHIT"
I'm assuming you're mexican.
>actually so buttfrustrated by the Mexica tribe that you deny they had one of the biggest cities of their time
>>764049
>Forgetting the other 50 gorillion
Pic related is Comanche civilization before the white man oppressed them.
>>764966
WE
>>764270
OY VEY
>>763554
Nowhere near 100 million natives died during the entirety of the conquest of the Americas.
It's speculated that 100 was the total amount of natives living in North America at the time the first Europeans came.
And still, the overwhelming majority of natives were killed due to disease, not with the intent of killing. The biggest genocide in human history was committed by the Chinese under Mao.
>>764949
That other anon wasn't me, I pulled the <200k out of my ass, but I'd be extremely skeptical of anyone claiming that the Spanish/Portuguese directly killed over even 1 million.
>>764955
Not that anon, but pic related is estimates for central mexico.
and the source is: The Native Population of the Americas in 1492
edited by William M. Denevan
>>763562
But if Mao does it, it's totally the sdupid gommie's fault!
>>763554
How is it a genocide if they kept killing each other?
It's like how aliens arrived on earth during WW1 and slowly acquired more and more land and we'd blame all the deaths during WW1 and WW2 on them when we finally start multiple wars against them and losing over and over again and still keep killing each other.
>>763554
Sad.
>>764983
What exactly did Mao do?
>>765098
>killing themselves
wat
>>764357
Every ancient civilization was prone to famines and crop failures, that was just the way the world worked.
>>764452
The Inca and Andes in general were nowhere near and were never a part of Mesoamerica. There were also huge population centers in North America such as Cahokia unrelated to both.
>>764866
The number has gone up because we're figuring out there were more and more agricultural sites and urban centers that we never knew existed before.
>>763554
Weren't most of the camps and as such most of the nazi genocide in poland?
>>764016
Green eyes are a mutation and can happen to any race in rare rare circumstances.
>>764452
>Inca
>mesoamerica
Are you underaged or just really stupid?
>>768349
>Poorly conceived agricultural policy which resulted in a famine causing tens of millions of deaths
And here anons were playing it off as something as horrible as Nazi depopulation plans.
>>768368
>And here anons were playing it off as something as horrible as Nazi depopulation plans.
It probably has more to do with his left-wing political views than anything. Genghis Khan deliberately slaughtered about 10% of the world's population (over 40 million people murdered) but nobody ever really feels the need to dwell on it
But in fairness he was in fact a horrible dictator, and millions did die in his political purges just like they did under Hitler and Stalin.
>>768415
Yeah well the Kipchap Turks or
Song dynasty Chinese doesn't control the media.
>>765047
So commie apologists and prairienigger lovers are the same people, who could've thought
>>768709
It's not really the news media's fault that reality has a liberal bias. And few of them would deny that Mao was anything but a relentless tyrant whose ideas did much more harm than good, they would simply assert that as being the inevitable consequence of blind adherence to ideology, just like blind adherence to nationalism leads to gas chambers and incinerators.
>>763554
add close to another 100mill removed from austriana in the last thousand odd years too
>>763554
Native americans were decimated by diseases that came with Europeans. Then colonists supported tribes that wanted revenge on tribes that were murdering and raping everyone around them like Comanches in N. America and Aztecs in S. America.
>>771589
It was actually the inverse of decimation.
>>771589
>Aztecs in S. America.
