So, is it true? Could the Native Americans have banded together and kicked out the white devil?
>>417433
I'm sure if reports came that native savages ransacked colonizers, the colonizers would send actual military to dispose of them
but if the natives were successful, the colonizers and would-be colonized would form a shaky pact.
I'm not sure if they'd be the super power they are today, but the native americans would be a global force nonetheless, should they survive
Unlikely but maybe, however it really doesn't matter, the natives hated each other and would've never been able to join together enough to chase the colonists out. If they did manage to chase the Euros away I'm not so sure that they could have become massively important nations but they definitely wouldn't be anything insignificant
>>417433
Dude, they don't even have the wheel.
>inb4 muh toys from Peru
No, you are literally from the stone age. Deal with it.
>>417451
>>417462
>native americans would be a global force nonetheless
Why do you guys say that? What would have made the difference between the Native Americans and the Africans in terms of getting a civilization from Hunter Gatherer/neolithic agriculturalist all the way to an industrialized nation in just a few hundred years?
>>417433
>it would still be a massively important country
I quite doubt it desu. European immigration brought in a shitload of population, technology, and actual cash (compared to some nebulous unworked resource that may or may not be found without greedy westerners searching every square inch of the continent).
I quite doubt they could have managed to remain independent in any way or form, after all even if they repelled the initial wave of colonists, would they still have managed to repel 19th century colonization efforts that defeated actual civilizations in Asia and organized tribes in Africa?
>>417433
Yeah, and the Mongols could've conquered Japan, and Alaric could've established his own Visigothic Roman Empire instead of getting dunked on by Honorius, and Nazi Germany could've completed atomic weapons before the Allies - there's always a hypothetical chance that the Native Americans could've just fucked up very early colonies bad enough that the Crown would eventually say 'fuck it', at least for a while.
What I don't think is even hypothetically possible is Native Americans developing ironworking or in turn other technologies to take advantage of said natural resources - without centralized states or the pressure of other centralized states, there wasn't enough of an incentive to develop new tech. Why not just do what your ancestors did?
The idea that if Europe had sodded off for long enough that Native Americans would've tossed their disparate cultures and traditions out the window and united into states and developed tech that took Euros thousands of years to figure out is pretty autistic desu. European victory was inevitable.
>>417534
Probably one individual nation would have figured out how to into industrialization like Japan and then conquer America like the Europeans did.
Then they'd be the ones portrayed as the racist evil people and imo that would be really funny.
>>417562
We would have this video, but it would be "King Philip" instead of "Christopher Columbus".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYTXRDtYzYc
Naw. Even if they'd enacted a scorched-earth policy of annihilating every European who set foot on the continent as they arrived, they would have just come back in greater numbers and girded for war. The population disparity was too great, and the technological gap too wide.
They could certainly have made it more difficult to establish a foothold, but excessive bellicosity would have accelerated the process of their being exterminated, not slowed it.
>>417494
native americans have actual resources to work with
>>417433
Here in South America most natives hated the Incas more than they hated whitey.
Not really. Illnesses would have killed 90% of the young population of Native tribes regardless, bringing enormous destabilization and inability for warfare.
Some, like the Incas and Azteks, could have managed without the susceptibility to Flu and a stronger union, but then they would have eventually fallen to become pseudo-colonies, like China. Living conditions would probably also probably be worse for the general population due to higher density and a weird language/culture making trade and education more difficult.
Europeans would have still steamrolled in areas with already low population density, like Canada, the North of the United States, parts of the Caribbean, and the South of Chile and Argentina, and the countries in these areas would have a much harder relationship with the native neighbors. I could see a United States that shared roots with the NeoAzteks, just going full genocide mode on them unopposed and establishing itself as some kind of Fascist State.
tl;dr: Not really, and if they did, things might have turned out even worse for the entire continent.
Too disparate to for a central govt/command to organize broad resistance. Also easily bought off by colonial powers. Also would have been defeated by liquid devil. Pic related.
>>417573
Oh for fucks sake who is so insecure about what happened centuries ago that you have to make a video insulting one of the most important, if not moral, people in history?
>>417433
Imagine if Atlantis rose from the sea and sent colony ships to medieval Europe along with crab robots and laser staffs. Would all the Europeans and Muslims have united? No. Many of them would see the Atlanteans as a means to accomplish their goals
>>417433
They couldn't have stopped troops of Alexander's day, much less European armies.
>>417433
Hadn't they just gone through a plague that wiped out like 90% of the population?
There are earlier reports of Europeans staying the fuck away because of the sheer number of preexisting settlements.
In the east farmers would build simple blockhouses and hold off indians from there. Forts which couldn't hold off any serious European or even Asian force were useful in North America. The natives didn't have centuries of siege warfare experience to deal with them.
>>417670
One of the most moral people in history? idk about that.
But I still would like to see that smug fuck who said "he got lost coming here!" try to calculate the circumference of the earth using only instruments available to the NATIVE AMERICANS in the 1470s.
80% of their population were dead by 1776 so no
also uniting the tribes of natives is about as likely as uniting all the European kingdoms at the time.
>>417631
This
Undoubtedly if there was such a thing as Pan-Nativism and all the indian tribes worked in perfect harmony with each other against the encroaching settlers. There was no such sentiment as pan-nativism however. We like to think of "Indians" as being one big group, but the natives thought of themselves as DISTINCT they saw themselves as Choctaw, Creek, Shawnee, etc... not as a family of brotherly Amerindians. In many cases, inter-tribal rivalries were much more fierce than hatred between Natives and settlers. The settlers in fact were often erstwhile allies, providing guns and other materials to help them fight other tribes.
In some world where Indians universally understood the threat white settlers posed to their way of life and worked feverishly in concert to oppose Europeans wherever they found them, they would have possessed such an advantage in men that wide-spread settlements would have been so dangerous and unprofitable that colonization might have been almost totally abandoned in North America.
>>419092
>Undoubtedly
Bitch please, how would they fight the European's pike and shot, guns and horses? With rocks, sticks and dogs? That's not even taking into account the inevitable smallpox epidemic.
They wouldn't form the long term union required to mass produce weapons within 150 years of king philips war.
Untrue. As much as 90% of their population was destroyed by disease, banding together to pool resources and wage mass warfare against European armies and colonial militias only would have increased the scale and rate of attrition. They never had a chance of holding North America no matter how organized they were.
>>417491
Harsh, but true. Natives had shit-tier technology, despite occupying the land for thousands of years. If they had stayed in that same isolation until 2015 they'd only be showing off a slightly different form of stone knife or spear.
Natives were never going to be able to survive as an independent society.
>>419211
Who's sending and paying for standing armies across North America to guard every settlement?
Colonies spread across NA because they were profitable. They were profitable because there was no real determined resistance by natives. On the contrary, the natives were often integral to the success of north American colonies by being eager trading partners.
The Natives didn't have to defeat any armies to wrest control of the continent, they just had to make it so dangerous and unprofitable to discourage white settlement. Something they failed to do because they saw white settles as valuable allies against rival tribes.
ITT: no one really knows anything about Native American civilizations
>>417433
No. A Spanish expedition marched right through the southern united states and crushed a civilization along the way without even taking much notice-and those people were fortified.
Almain rivet would be FUCKING IMPENETRABLE to native weapons, and anyone who wanted it could get it.
Most tribes don't have shields, they don't have long hand weapons, their bows are often weak, and will be outshot by organized crossbows...
And they can't marshal a large fighting force.
This ignoring cavalry. Heavy cavalrymen would fucking massacre EVERYTHING in the middle of the country.
For fucks sake, people-one tribe turned away colonial soldiers, because they were killing their joint foe too effectively and it appalled them.
The natives were a joke. They'd have needed a millennia to catch up socially and be able to field a real army.
>>417577
>Even if they'd enacted a scorched-earth policy of annihilating every European who set foot on the continent as they arrived, they would have just come back in greater numbers and girded for war.
This. These aren't Picts we're talking about, we will come back for them
>>419250
You do realize that once the first few colonies start to produce good cash crops, more powerful entities take note, right?
There's NOTHING stopping any crown power form sending over a thousand privately armed adventurers in half armor with pikes and crossbows to build and maintain a large settlement.
Once Europeans knew North America could turn a profit, the natives were done.
>>417491
>you are literally from the stone age. Deal with it.
Except they had metal-working.
North Americans?
Not a fucking chance, and no they wouldn't be anything near a global power or whatever.
South Americans?
Perhaps, though unlikely.
>>417670
>Oh for fucks sake who is so insecure about what happened centuries ago that you have to make a video insulting one of the most important,
It's more calling out people and governments that dedicate a whole holiday and build statues of the guy and completely whitewash him. When's the last time you read a history book that covered how Columbus enslaved, killed, and raped natives? Some of his crew even went after children to rape and take away back home with them.
> try to calculate the circumference of the earth using only instruments available to the NATIVE AMERICANS in the 1470s.
Except Columbus had full access to instruments and information available for thousands of years at that point. Even the ancient Greeks had pretty accurately calculated the size of Earth.
>>419266
>No. A Spanish expedition marched right through the southern united states and crushed a civilization along the way without even taking much notice-and those people were fortified.
Horrible mischaracterization of the Cortez/Pizarro expeditions. Neither civilization initially treated the Europeans as adversaries and their cordial and curious attitudes towards the strangers were more responsible for the Spanish success than their steel weapons and armor.
They also fought pitched battles against professional soldiers which favored the Europeans.
Remember, the settlers coming to NA were adventurous working-class families and religious refugees, not trained soldiers equipped for war.
>>419279
which ones?
I guess the Mesos actually did have gold down pat, did they have anything else?
>>419271
>You do realize that once the first few colonies start to produce good cash crops
Against determined native resistance, every attempt at north American settlement would have ended up like Roanoke.
>>419291
There was gold, silver, iron, and copper working. Yes, it was primitive compared to Europe. No, it was not "literally the stone age".
>>419266
>A Spanish expedition marched right through the southern united states and crushed a civilization along the way
With the help of tens of thousands of native troops that wanted to overthrow the Aztec and Inca.
>>419294
>iron and copper
I'm actually surprised that I haven't heard about this, what did they use it for and why did they insist on continuing to use wood and stone weapons?
>>419298
I only know about Mesoamerica, but they had obsidian weapons which were way, way sharper and easier to produce and replace than any metal weapon.
>>419286
>It's more calling out people and governments that dedicate a whole holiday and build statues of the guy and completely whitewash him.
Yeah and Romanians love Vlad Tepes, what about it?
>>419298
>why did they insist on continuing to use wood and stone weapons?
What makes you think they only used stone and wood tools and weapons?
>>419305
>way sharper
not even close to as durable though cause it's glass, and still technically stone I guess.
>>419306
>what about it?
People don't chimp out when you point out Vlad was a sociopath mass-murderer.
But mention Columbus was an asshole and everyone loses their minds and comes out of the woodworks to say "NO, NO YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND"
>>419308
>not even close to as durable though
Which is besides the point. It was easier to make a new obsidian weapon than maintain a metal one. Even today obsidian flakes are some of the sharpest materials on the planet, as in sharp enough to use for medical procedures.
>>419307
huh sauce?
http://www.mpm.edu/research-collections/anthropology/online-collections-research/old-copper-culture
>made by early inhabitants of the Great Lakes region during a period that spans several thousand years and covers several thousand square miles. The most conclusive evidence suggests that native copper was utilized to produce a wide variety of tools beginning in the Middle Archaic period circa 4,000 BC. The vast majority of this evidence comes from dense concentrations of Old Copper finds in eastern Wisconsin. These copper tools cover a broad range of artifact types: axes, adzes, various forms of projectile points, knives, perforators, fishhooks and harpoons. By about 1,500 BC artifact forms began to shift from utilitarian objects to personal ornaments, which may reflect an increase in social stratification toward the Late Archaic and Early Woodland period (Pleger 2000). While copper continued to be used in North America up until European contact, it was only used in small amounts, primarily for symbolic ornaments.
That's fucking bizzare desu.
copper kind of sucks without tin to make bronze as a weapon though.
>>419266
The Aztecs had just gotten done with a ruinous succession struggle. They were definitely not at their strongest.
Not that I think the outcome could possibly have been different, but Cortes' breezy success had to do with a lot of factors lining up in his favor, and not to do with the Aztecs simply being pushovers. Their resistance stiffened up quite a bit later on, it was just far too late at that point.
>>419311
>besides the point
not in the middle of a fight it isn't. That Aztec warclub is nasty but it tends to shatter it's edges real quick and then just be a regular club.
>>419319
Toppling the Aztecs was nothing compared to the Inca. Read through all the events that had to line up perfectly for the Spanish to defeat them and you have to believe Pizarro sold his soul to the devil for inhuman luck.
>>419325
>not in the middle of a fight it isn't.
It is if you're trying to say they were in the stone age.
>but it tends to shatter it's edges real quick and then just be a regular club.
That was a feature, not a flaw. They didn't want to kill the opponent in battle, just maim and disable them so they couldn't fight or escape, so that hey could drag them back to sacrifice.
>>419319
Also the fact that he matched the physical description of Quetzalcoatl,the date of his prophesied return to basically the day, and his vessels.
weird synchronicity there
>>419330
>a feature, not a flaw
>just maim and disable
true that
>>419250
>Who's sending and paying for standing armies across North America to guard every settlement?
The scenario is already in lala fantasy land assuming that all the Native Americans band together, so I'm not even going to dignify that with an answer.
>>419330
>so that they could drag them back to sacrifice.
Recall (if you don't already know) that that was one of the reasons that the Spanish were so fucking successful in warfare against the Aztecs. They couldn't stop them because they never figured out that it's really hard to knock someone out wearing a steel helmet.
Colonizers in the 18th century already had a hard time penetrating further inland over there because of native resistance,(and other factors) the only country that managed to do this very well in the region that is now the usa was france because of their native friendly policies, they infact traded rather than outright immigrating to produce things in the americas(at least in new france), in fact new france had a french population of 70,000 people(compare that to the thirtheen colonies with more than a million people) in the 18th century, which is very low and shows that natives in new france would live undisturbed for the most part.
What is it with france and being so native friendly anyway, even in agrica they were the most mild of all the colonisers
>>419309
>People don't chimp out when you point out Vlad was a sociopath mass-murderer.
No, they celebrate it because he killed their enemies and the corrupt aristocracy.
Which is why I think we should do the same with Columbus. Everything he did, helped pave the way for the western hemisphere as it is today.
>>419356
>it's really hard to knock someone out wearing a steel helmet.
They didn't knock you out, they shattered your arms and legs with a club coated in razor-sharp glass and dragged you off. The Spaniards and their horses still suffered from their weapons and died, they just also had over ten thousand native troops fighting with them that everyone conveniently forgets.
>>419360
>they celebrate it
Most everyone has no problem at all admitting Vlad was sadistic and cruel.
But say Columbus was sadistic and cruel and white people lose it and chimp out "HE DINDU NUFFIN HE WAS A GOOD BOY BOUT TA GET HIS COLONY TOGETHER"
>>419361
You keep on dropping these natives, while also forgetting to mention that the Spanish were still outnumbered by an order of magnitude. Spanish forces never numbered too far above 20,000, whereas the Aztecs at Tenochtitlan numbered 300,000.
The Spanish and their allies often fought outnumbered and in disadvantaged situations, and they still won by landslides. Stop being dense.
>>419397
And the landslides weren't from the Spanish having metal helmets protecting them from "getting knocked out"
>>419402
Yeah, it's because the spanish had 20 foot long pikes stopping the literally naked, starving Aztec peasant levies from getting anywhere near them.
>>419370
That is my point.
I'm saying we SHOULD celebrate Columbus, good and bad. Because in the end, he made his mark on history.
>>419432
Good so you've learned it's not because of
> They couldn't stop them because they never figured out that it's really hard to knock someone out wearing a steel helmet.
>>419435
>good and bad.
Except for the most part they don't celebrate the good and bad. Ask most people what Columbus did bad and they wouldn't even be able to give you a coherent answer.
>>417433
Assuming the East coast Indians could've somehow communicated and convinced all the groups like the Apache and Mid/Western groups and engaged in guerrilla warfare?
Sure they probably would've held out until a European power actually sent a large army.
>>419432
they had guns too
don't forget that the conquistadors were basically drawn from the Tercios
>>419437
>I lost the argument, and had to admit that Aztecs didn't stand a chance fighting pike and shot
>Oh wait, someone made a under-exaggeration for literary effect, let me fixate on that instead of showing some humility for once in my life
>>419454
I never mentioned pike and shot you spastic retard. Slowly reread the exchange, it was about me pointing out how stupid your original, specific statement was.
>>419458
Ok I reread it. It was originally about you saying how Aztec obsidian weapons were just as good European steel.
The four great civilizations of the Americas around the time of Columbus were: The Mound Builders, the Cherokee, the Aztec, and the Inca.
1. The Mound Builders were dying out prior to this time and dead by the time explorers showed up in the Mississippi region of the Midwest.
2. The Cherokee were defeated by the colonists without too much issue due to disease and advanced technology.
3. The Aztec were defeated because none of the other tribes liked them and their religion said that white man would end them.
4. The Inca were in a civil war due to a succession problem. They had their own problems to deal with.
None could have readily defeated European colonists on their own. Their chances of uniting were so slim and unlikely if not impossible.
>>417433
In some areas in the first few centuries after Columbus, yes, but it would have resulted in isolationism which not be a good thing in the long term.
They would have to accomplish 2 things.
1: Unite against whitey
2: Trade with whitey to get horses, steel, etcetera
>"stole" "our" land
And your people stole it from those who lived before you, and they stole it from those before them, and so on.
>>419467
Then retake high school reading comprehension. I said Aztecs used obsidian weapons because they were more effective and easier to obtain for their fighting style, and that obsidian was sharper than any steel at the time. No one but you said anything about one thing being better or worse or just as good because that's an autistic power level bullshit line of thinking.
>>419474
The Mound Builders were already in a long decline by the time of Columbus, and the Cherokee were related/descended from them. I'm not sure why you bring them up since the Haudenosaunee and the Pueblo were still around.
>>417433
>I wonder what it would look like
Probably a mix of Africa and south america and just as insignificant.
>>419477
That's now how modern western academics works, anon. Conquests and colonialism that occurred prior to what Europe did don't count and don't matter, only the white man is evil and deserves to pay.
>>419474
>their religion said that white man would end them
spooky af
>>417494
They think that they would have been important based on the example of China and Japan, which is still mostly of its native population. Never mind these two countries started from a much higher level of technical and political development and even then had to coopt much Western culture to get where they are today.
>>419484
I've been appropriating the
>Holy
>Roman
>empire
Meme when discussing Africa and
>black
>African
>nationalism
Because it was neither black, nor African, nor nationalism.
>>419500
>gods or whatever
described as having blonde hair and blue eyes if I'm not mistaken and I basically have no clue if I am or not
>>419507
Either way they had legends about the white man.
>>419509
why
>>419545
Might have been inspired by albinos which have always had weird legends and myths around them in other cultures.
Or could have just been a random color picked for its symbolic purposes, just like India and China had myths and legends of blue- and red-skinned people.
>>419292
Not if the European powers decide to send their armies over en masse.
>>417433
Most of them died from diseases anyway, banding together wouldn't protect them from that
>>419550
>inspired by albinos
>a random color
yo that's a fucking copout mang
>>419594
Notice the or. Maybe the legends of people with white skin were from albinos they saw, or maybe they associated the color white with death or something so they made those specific legendary beings white.
>>419596
>maybe
DUDE
there are actual white people that exist
think about it
>>419610
And the ancient ancestors to the Aztec wouldn't have seen any of them or realized they existed outside of a rare albino.
>>419615
are you positive?
can native Americans even breed albinos?
>>419621
The Vikings would have only been extremely limited contact with a small number of peoples on the other side of the continent. I doubt anything would have dispersed that way, and you'd expect that the local cultures would have the biggest impact from having contact with them instead, but they didn't.
>>419626
>are you positive?
Yes, because no white people other than the Vikings ever reached America before Columbus.
Anyone can breed albinos, they're just rare.
>>419621
Even if so they wouldn't have been feared or revered because they were repulsed rather easily.
>>419627
>no white people other than the Vikings ever reached America before Columbus.
where is proofs
>>419477
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f82d7-SVzCw
>>419638
The complete lack of any substantial proofs that anyone but the Vikings came. The very closest is the theory that some Basque fishermen came close to the grand banks, but even that is really flimsy and lacks any solid evidence.
>>419641
>Anthropologist Archaeologist and Geneticist all agree Solutreans( sometimes referd to as ethnic Japhethites) were the first North Americans.
>>419647
ok ok listen
Atlanteans from Hyperborea.
wait, seriously
Aliens.
>>419660
That's retarded, it was obviously samsquanches
>>419651
I buy it.
>>419667
Then you need a better source than the Book of Mormon
>>419670
clovis point arrowheads where and when they shouldn't exist are a thing
>>419676
Now explain why the similar arrowheads appeared thousands and thousands of miles away and thousands of years apart without leaving a single trace of evidence behind showing how they migrated.
Explain how or why people would walk out over the Atlantic ice sheets for weeks or months at a time with no idea what's on the other side and no food to follow like the Siberians did with the Bering bridge.
Explain why these supposed Clovis settlers left no genetic evidence behind at all in the current Indians.
>>419682
>walk out over the Atlantic ice sheets
Why walk when you can follow seals in a boat?
>no food
I suppose it's also impossible for Polynesians to colonize Easer Island in canoes.
>no genetic evidence
>current Indians
how could you even tell? Many native tribes are gone or mixed to oblivion, and the ones that aren't are genetically distinct from one another. It wouldn't be the first time a genocide happened.
>explain why the similar arrowheads appeared thousands and thousands of miles away and thousands of years apart
that's what I'm asking
I watched this documentary back in 2009 or some shit on His chan, did you?
>>419693
>I suppose it's also impossible for Polynesians to colonize Easer Island in canoes.
Polynesians had massively more advanced seafaring technology and knowledge, as well as much more hospitable and fertile areas to colonize, and they still didn't manage to do it until the last thousand years.
Again, where is the trail of breadcrumbs of other arrow heads and sites that showed these people migrating from one area to the other? Shouldn't there be a wealth of them on the east coast when they landed and left shit behind? Why does one culture vanish and then supposedly reappear thousands of years later on the other side of a large ocean?
>how could you even tell?
Genetic testing of pre-Columbus Indian burial sites. You can't stick a shovel in the ground without hitting one. Fuck I live literally right next to one. The same genetic testing that ties them to Siberian and Australian peoples, not Europeans.
>>419596
Possibly; I know several beings/spirits is african folklore are described as white.
The idea that the "white men" the Aztecs expected came from the Leif Herikson's crew is cool and all is cool... but I'm sure it's just a coincidence
>>419708
>where is the trail
>Shouldn't there be a wealth of them on the east coast
I was under the impression that it was precisely that which remains unexplained.
>pre-Columbus Indian burial sites
pre-Columbus is a long fucking time, and not all natives buried their dead in the same way.
It's not a far fetched theory, there's some unexplained stuff here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis
>>419732
>I was under the impression that it was precisely that which remains unexplained.
What are you talking about? It being unexplained is the biggest whole in the theory, since these supposed Solutrean settlers didn't leave any artifacts behind at all before popping up further inland.
>pre-Columbus is a long fucking time,
Skeletons ranging from several thousand to several hundred years old all consistently show Indians are descended from Siberians and Australians.
>that pic
So Nigerians are also descended from ancient Europeans?
>>419732
The haplogroup distribution is from Europeans and Americans having a common ancestor in Siberia, not from one settling the other.
>>419651
Missed the point being made.
>>419755
And what was that?
I mean they say that within 100-150 years of Columbus' first contact, at least 80% of the population of the New World had died from the diseases explorers and settlers from the old world had brought over. Native American societies never had a chance to recover from that.
>>419757
Watch it again...It'll come to you.
>>419757
Not the guy you're replying to, but the Native American cultures that existed were already indistinguishable from the cultures that originally settled the land. Civilizations rose and fell, lands fell into hands of different ethnic identities by means of bloodshed and conquest, and those ethnic identities changed to become indistinguishable from what they originally looked like. Native Americans don't get to say "we owned the land," they, like the European cultures, conquered some other culture to get it.
>>419742
>several thousand
not a long time, we're talking 19,000 years here
>didn't leave any artifacts behind
http://pidba.utk.edu/maps.htm
that east coast spread though
image size limit is fucking me right not
>Nigerians are also descended from ancient Europeans
there's a healthy dose of that haplogroup chilling there, doesn't mean all of them.
>>419763
That wholesale genocide is justified as long as the people being genocided also fought each other?
Well shit man Jews and Gypsies not getting along totally justifies their genocides then.
>>419288
Late but need to add this since the "hurr 500 Spaniards destroyed the Aztecs" belief needs to die.
Cortez allied himself with the hostile tribes like the Tlaxcala and had tens of thousands of natives backing him up.
>>419774
As they did onto each other, a mightier force did onto them.
That's the way of the world, whether you like it or not.
>>419772
>not a long time, we're talking 19,000 years here
Clovis culture didn't exist that long ago.
DNA from 13,000 years ago, from the Clovis culture, is from Siberia http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140212-anzik-skeleton-dna-montana-clovis-culture-first-americans/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7487/full/nature13025.html
Another Clovis person from Montana, once again Siberian DNA.
You can probably find older examples.
Also remember that wholescale, continent-wide genocides like what happened in post-contact America was an anomaly, not the norm. The only reason there was so much death was because disease did most of the work for them, for ancient peoples like this there wouldn't be the ability or political organization to pull off wiping out two whole continents' worth of natives without a trace.
>>419772
I remember Clovis sites being more inland than that, but I'll concede that specific point. There's still the issue of why one culture disappears for thousands of years before reappearing again. I don't think it took them millennia to cross the Atlantic.
>>419801
>a single skeleton
>"Unfortunately, we don't have much genetic material for native people living in the United States," Waters said. "If you look at the genetic map [of humans around the world], the U.S. is a big [blank] spot."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum
>continent-wide genocides like what happened in post-contact America was an anomaly, not the norm
idk about that, it's not like genocide and ethnic cleansing is a purely modern thing. Not to mention the fact that it wasn't uncommon for entire tribal groups to simply disappear in Europe alone, never mention what the Mongols did.
besides, the solutrean hypothesis suggests a technological inheritance rather than a direct genetic link.
>>419489
What a self contradictory and ignorant thing to say.
China was entirely irrelevant as soon as the colonial period began. It was basically a whore, open to all takers. It produced nothing of value nor projected any power until after the Cultural Revolution.
Japan was, like China, a highly developed civilization. The difference being that unlike the Chinese, they did not blunder their way into irrelevance and became a world power not by 'coopting' western culture, but by adapting to and innovating upon Western technology.
Japan was making it's own radios, battleships, submarines before the turn of the century, pal. The various Japanese peoples also had much more in common than any 3 or 4 Native American groups you could put in the same room. I say that on purpose, because usually they'd just kill each other.
Native Americans in the US/Canada were actual, honest to god stone age peoples. They had no advanced writing system, let alone something syllabic. Europeans created the Inuit script, for example...
Also, what do you think the Indians in Canada and New England were doing between 1400 and 1700? Tribe X would join the French to kill Tribe Y that had sided with the British, and rinse and repeat for every tribe encountered. Natives in the North East killed more of each other than they did Europeans.
Nah. If Europe hadn't colonized North America and took a Federation-like none interference approach, the Indians would still be stone age.
>>419819
>>a single skeleton
Which is dismissed, but if the skeleton had been European you would be parading as definitive proof. How is a Clovis skeleton being purely from Siberian ancestry not hard evidence that they were descended from Siberia?
>idk about that, it's not like genocide and ethnic cleansing is a purely modern thing
On localised scales, it isn't. The Inuits pushed out the Dorset with little genetic inheritance for example. But you're talking about a systemic purging covering two whole continents, which simply wouldn't have been possible at the time.
>uncommon for entire tribal groups to simply disappear in Europe alone, never mention what the Mongols did.
You're comparing events and peoples such as the Mongols or Polynesians with cultures that existed tens of thousands of years ago. There simply is no comparison at all for the advanced technology and political sophistication the Mongols or Polynesians or other groups would have had compared to these peoples.
>besides, the solutrean hypothesis suggests a technological inheritance rather than a direct genetic link.
So you think Siberian peoples came and completely genocided the native populations, but then abandoned their old cultures to adopt the one they just destroyed?
Do you have any background in this at all?
>>419821
>Native Americans in the US/Canada were actual, honest to god stone age peoples.
Except they weren't.
Native Americans had poor communication. There was no universal language like how in Europe the educated would know Latin. There weren't even common languages like how in Europe if you spoke 2-3 of the common languages you could live anywhere.
Each tribe had it's own language and so it was hard to communicate. But it was even harder because unlike Europe they didn't books, everything had to be learned orally. So if the translater in your tribe died than you lost your own way of communicating.
And this lack of unity s EXACTLY why the Indians never accomplished anything and were conquered by people that actually learned how to work together.
>>419839
>if the skeleton had been European
>a Clovis skeleton being one thing means all Clovis peoples were the same thing
Well the presence of Siberians in the new world is not in dispute.
>two whole continents
It wouldn't have to be a whole continent, European migrants could conceivably been limited to a smaller area.
>you think Siberian peoples came and completely genocided the native populations, but then abandoned their old cultures to adopt the one they just destroyed?
I'm suggesting that assimilation or a combination of the two that's common enough might have been what happened.
>>419849
>And this lack of unity s EXACTLY why
Yeah I'm sure disease had nothing to do with it.
>the Indians never accomplished anything
Except of build independent civilizations and massively influence the world with the plants they spent thousands of years domesticating. You wouldn't be here today if crops like the potato, corn, tomato, squashes, and many others were never domesticated, nevermind the massive economic effects of tobacco.
>>419847
Yes, well luckily for them the Europeans, Asians and literally everyone in between only got through the bronze age 2000 years before that.
Natives didn't even make stone structures, I know of no evidence for irrigation or running water (bronze age inventions once again), no multi-storied buildings, absolutely no demonstrable knowledge of complex mathematics...
>>419861
>Yeah I'm sure disease had nothing to do with it.
Do you know how many plagues other civilizations endured, and survived? Egypt, Athens, the Roman and Byzantine Empires, the Chinese, Medieval Europe... like fuck, 40% of the Byzantine Empire died in the 6th century and it remained for another 800 years.
Immediately after contacting South America Europe experienced the black death and lost 200 million people.
But yeah, sure, blame the primitive natives failure on disease.
>>419867
>didn't even make stone structures
what were the meso pyramids?
>no demonstrable knowledge of complex mathematics
actually that was an area that the mesos excelled at, they kind of just only used it for calendars and astronomy and shit.
>>419859
>Well the presence of Siberians in the new world is not in dispute.
Exactly, because there are mountains of evidence to support them. The European presence is in dispute exactly because of this lack of evidence.
>European migrants could conceivably been limited to a smaller area.
How would it make sense for one group to quickly expand to cover two entire continents (ones already filled with natives in this hypothetical scenario), but not for another to do the same in an empty continent? Even if it was only North America you're still talking a massive expanse of territory.
>>419867
>Natives didn't even make stone structures
Are you retarded? Not even memeing.
> I know of no evidence for irrigation or running water
http://www.jstor.org/stable/215275?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100504155421.htm
>Maya plumbing: First pressurized water feature found in New World
>no multi-storied buildings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo
>no demonstrable knowledge of complex mathematics...
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/HistTopics/Mayan_mathematics.html
>>419874
>Do you know how many plagues other civilizations endured, and survived? Egypt, Athens, the Roman and Byzantine Empires, the Chinese, Medieval Europe... like fuck, 40% of the Byzantine Empire died in the 6th century and it remained for another 800 years.
And even Justinians plague or the Black Death never killed 90+% of the population. You're comparing apples to oranges and think you're being clever.
>>419861
>disease
Do you really think the indians had a chance?
The Europians were united with a shared language, a shared culture, and had already moved away from the nation level into the empire level. The Indians were still at the tribal level and had no sense of unity.
Not to mention the massive difference in technology. A gun-man can be trained and turned into a warrior within a few weeks. While to achieve the same accuracy with a bow it would take years of intense practice. So the Europians were always better equiped. Not only that but the guns were more lethal than the arrows, less affected by weather (a bow becomes useless in harsh winds for instance), and can be used with one hand.
Oh and let's not forget the massive difference in buildings. The Europians would have fortresses made of brick, guarded by cannons while the very best the Indians could have was some loosely strung together sticks that would become a death-trap the moment a bit of fire was used.
Oh and I'll remind you again about the power of writing, something Indians struggled with. The reasons the Europians got to have an empire and the Indians got nothing was because you cannot maintain an empire without a literate society to share, record, and quickly communicate all the thousand of important information about culture and technology.
The Indians were simply inferior, that's why the lost.
>>419867
>absolutely no demonstrable knowledge of complex mathematics...
Natives independently figured out the number 0 while Europeans had to steal it from Arabs who stole it from India
>>419877
You can't talk about both Native Americans from North America and South America in the same discussion.
In South America civilization did develop, and they did have writing, monumental architecture, running water, etc. They were about 2000-3000 years behind Europe in all of it, though. Their architectural designs and techniques, from how they constructed corridors to how they build their aqueducts to the tools they used were all bronze age, reminiscent of (I think very early) Sumeria and Mycenaean Greece and Nuragics. Which is to say, unrefined, confined, and practical.
Nothing wrong with that though, but there is no conceivable way North American Indians would have gotten anywhere near that level on their own. Like anon said, no common language, no writing, no anything conducive to civilization. Society sure, but not civilization.
>>419881
And yet you act as if the discovery of a 13,000 year old European corpse in America wouldn't be fucking huge.
>would it make sense for one group to quickly expand to cover two entire continents (ones already filled with natives in this hypothetical scenario), but not for another to do the same
one group had a land bridge, the other was following a glacier in boats. One path allows for greater flow.
>>419890
Take a real long hard look at a map and see what continent Mexico is in.
Hint: it isn't in South America
>>419898
It isn't really the Great Lakes or Cascadia either.
>>419884
Not the poster of that info but the plague recurred in various outbreaks for about 200 years.
>>419888
>The Europians were united with a shared language, a shared culture
I'm guessing you're American holy shit.
>The Indians were still at the tribal level and had no sense of unity.
Except for their own empires and city states and confederacies.
>>419903
And do you think Cascadia and the Great Lakes are all there is to North America? The Mesoamerican civilizations were North American.
>>419906
>Mesoamerican civilizations were North American
idk man the Aztecs had a lot more in common with the Mayans and Incas than they did the Northern tribes.
>>419899
>>Make believe numbers don't count in grown up threads.
>Smallpox, measles, influenza, and malaria (and possibly hepatitis, plague, chickenpox, and diphtheria) spread into Mexico and Peru during the 16th century, New France and New England during the 17th century, and throughout North America and the Pacific islands during the 18th and 19th centuries. Populations often decreased by more than 90% during the first century after contact.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1698152/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2957993/#R1
>>419904
I don't know what that changes, Indians were still dealing with disease outbreaks into the 20th century.
>>419884
A real question is why did the New World natives succumbed to pandemics at a greater rate than the Europeans? Taking into account the rather primitive nature of European medicine at the time.
>>419909
>Aztecs
>in common with the Inca
>The Maya are somehow South American now
Here's your reply.
>>419915
literally genetics
Euros had better immune systems
>>419915
The Old World had a much longer history of close contact with domesticated animals like cows and pigs that brought disease with them that the Indians didn't have.
>>419898
>>419877
>>419881
>>419898
>>419906
Here is a map for you guys, so we can understand each other better.
Note: Yes, there were (carved) stone structures north of this line, but they were not representative of any of the tribes on this picture.
Also note that The Navajo, closest to those structures, never had any contact with Great Lakes populations.
Above the line: hunter gathers and rudimentary agriculture. Stone age tools, no writing, no math, no stone architecture, aquaducts, and limited if any use of metals (and only bronze if any).
>>419926
Nice map senpai
>>419926
Of course I forgot the map.
>>419928
>North America starts at the foreskin of Florida
fund it
Central America is called that for a reason.
>>419928
http://www.cabrillo.edu/~crsmith/noamer_formative.html
>>419935
>accidentally fucking up one of their major canal projects
that's fucking hilarious
and they say great man theory is dumb
people do things sometimes
>>419934
>literally one noteworthy civilization of bronze age level in North American
>virtually on the border of South America
>GAIS INDIANS COULDA BEEN INDUSTRIALIZED BY NOW
Sure.
>>419941
I didn't say the line separated the continents, just the technological or civilizational divide between North and South.
If you want to pretend that the Mayans and the Algonquins were close friends and that the Mayans were about to build pyramids for their cousins before the Spanish and French ruined things, you go ahead.
>>419945
>>virtually on the border of South America
Do you honestly think Mesoamerica and the Andes had regular contact to heavily influence each other? Even in the modern day the jungles of Central America are impassable in some spots and there were few seafaring cultures between them, not to mention that Mesoamerica and the Andes are night and day in terms of civilization. They have no common roots, and anyone who thinks they're similar to each other had no fucking clue about either of them.
>GAIS INDIANS COULDA BEEN INDUSTRIALIZED BY NOW
Nice strawman.
>>419954
I didn't say they had contact, merely that Mayans are very, very far south. Particularly compared to the first North American Indians (of the Great Lakes region) that (French and English and even Dutch) colonizers encountered.
There is no comparison between Mayans and Iroquois or Algonquins or Apaches or whatever other group you want to use.
Not only was there no contact, there are no overt or even subtle similarities, unless you care to indicate some.
Why not make separate threads to discuss obviously different civilizations and cultures, rather than attacking anybody who points out, rightfully, that North American Indians were a highly primitive and disorganized series of tribes that historically preferred to kill each other than the 'white devil'.
>>419915
Adding this for sake of discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
>>419283
What makes you say south americans might be better?
>>419963
>Not only was there no contact, there are no overt or even subtle similarities, unless you care to indicate some.
There was also no contact or cultural similarities between the Algonquins and Apache, so why lump them together but exclude the Maya? You keep moving the goalposts saying "b-b-but Mesoamerica wasn't North American" despite having trade and cultural ties with the American south-west, California, Florida, and the Mississippian culture, which built their own stone monuments and waterworks of various kinds and had different metal-working traditions that somehow "don't count".
>>421221
And you post none of this, and claim that through magic and warm feelings a culture (civilization doesnt even apply to most of them) that is was over 4000 years behind Europe could someone have industrialized.
Either provide evidence that they weren't stone age, or make a thread with a specific focus rather than one discussing Native Americans at large, which spanned two continents and hundreds or thousands of tribes.
>>421389
I never claimed anywhere in my posts that they could have industrialized. Literally no one except for OP's question and some people pointing out how wrong he is have even fucking mentioned that.
>Either provide evidence that they weren't stone age
Literal metal working. Do you understand the meaning of the term stone age?
>>419288
>Horrible mischaracterization of the Cortez/Pizarro expeditions. Neither civilization initially treated the Europeans as adversaries
Completely incorrect. Natives were hostile to Cortes from the start, even includong the Tlaxcalla. The two expeditions who explored the mainland coast before Cortes were also attacked.
>>419776
This "hurr durr 500 veterans of the Italian Wars armed with good swords, cannon and cavalry can't be a disorganized mob of bronze-age primitives" meme needs to die.
Cortes (and his 500 good men inclusively) beat a fresh, well-equipped Spanish army of over 1,000 men sent to arrest him, without native allies.
Before reaching Tenochitlan, Cortes defeated armies of natives numbering tens of thousand, without native assistance.
Spanish brigandines defeated thousands of Aztec canoes on the canals, again without native assistance.
During the months-long siege of Tenochitlan, after one disasterous forary into the city, the native allies lost heart and returned home with their loot. Only about 30 of the most loyal stayed with the Spanish. The Spanish won anyway.
>>419662
I think you mean dragons. Every culture has dragons. So obviously there was an international dragon network to tell them about how awesome whites were.
There would be no "America". There were literally various tribes genociding the fuck out of each other, there was no concept of a unified country.
>>417491
Yeah cause a Llama drawn cart is real fucking useful in the Andes
>>417885
True, but Columbus was still an idiot though.
The fact that earth was round and its approximate circumference was common knowledge among the educated. In the west, it was calculated by Eratosthenes in the 3rd Century BC. Columbus, for some reason, thought it was smaller and if he didn't happen to luck out and find an unknown continent about as far away as he thought east Asia was, he and his entire fleet would have starved to death in the middle of the ocean and literally nobody would have cared.
>if the natives had BTFO settlers Europe woulda just sent a bunch of armies to fight back
I'd like to point out that right around the time of Cortez and Pizzaro, the Spanish Armada happened, one of the first attempts to ship an army worth speaking of that failed miserably. The logistics were fucked (the soldiers aboard the boats ate the food supplies as quickly as they were loaded), the cost of it practically bankrupted Spain, and they couldn't even go up the European coast without the sea fucking them up hardcore. By the time the Spanish actually showed up to the English coast, most of the soldiers were starving, dehydrated and suffering from scurvy and dysentery. And this was precolonial Spain in its prime, controlling Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and I believe Genoa, one of the most powerful nations in Europe.
European powers were in no place to reinforce settlements on a large scale.
>>421675
This is a complete misrepresentation of what actually happened, and you should know that.
>>422257
Point out where he's wrong. The reason Columbus had so much trouble finding funding was because people already knew the ocean would be too big to cross.
>>422301
He's not explicitly wrong, it's just a misrepresentation. There was scholarly debate about in what units Eratosthenes' measurements were given, some debate about how many degrees wide the European continent was, how large Japan was and where it was placed with respect to mainland Asia. Columbus looked at the lower bound and he said "well, a modern seafaring vessel could certainly cross the ocean if this is right." The fact that he was wrong doesn't mean that he was an idiot. He was probably better read than you and he was able to debate with the big court scholars of his time.
>>417433
They didnt even have roads.
>>419296
>>419288
>>419319
>southern united states
Learn to read.
South america is it's own continent, and it is not what I am referring to.
I am referring to de sotos expedition, which found itself locked in combat during either an ambush, or a 100% unplanned mile inside a fortified settlement. They proceeded to inflict vastly disproportionate losses on the natives.
>>417433
No, they were literally useless compared to the whites. Sure they could kill some but they would get annihilated if they did
>>419402
No, it's a direct result of fighting in tight units, with their arms and torsos behind shields (and varying degrees of armor while the head is covered with a lined piece of steel. And using steel swords with hand guards against men armed with large clubs.
That and cavalry.
Had the spanish not been so well armed, they'd have been fucking crippled in early skirmishes before hearing the WORD aztec, and overwhelmed and slaughtered at otumba.
Had they not been seen as extraordinarily effective, people would simply not have been willing to unite behind them, either.
>>419432
Cortez was fielding rodeleros for the most part. Not pikes. Not much for guns, either. A fair complement of crossbows, and a LOT of shields.
>>417433
No. Native Americans were like the Celts when it came to infighting. They couldn't help NOT doing it.
>>419550
It was probably inspired by the Clovis people or some of the other supposed Europeans that lived in the Americas prior to Columbus that had gone extinct by that time.
>>420230
I mean, they had all the great native civilizations. Aztecs, inca, the mayans were in mexico at least.
>>424122
>inca
> were in mexico
>Maya and Aztec
>South American
>Mexico
>part of South America
>>424108
Clovis peoples were from Siberia, not Europe, and existed well over ten thousand years before the early Mexica started developing their legends and myths.
>>419559
Not him, but there is always the possibility of it ending up a mutual loss like the Spanish and the Mapuche.
>>419915
Polan stronk!
Beat Black Death!
>>419298
>I'm actually surprised that I haven't heard about this
So you don't know shit, like a typical fucking stormfag. The inca even had halberds. Google it.
>>419325
Actually, when fitted properly, the blades were quite durable.
>>424181
>Inca
>Mexico
But they were Peruvian.
>>419294
They had copper but they certainly didnt have iron before europeans introduced it to them, also they didnt have tin and copper on its own kinda sucks.
>>419915
The euros developed immunity to a lot of diseases. The natives were never exposed before to the diseases so they had no resistance in their body to fight it
>>424289
Exactly my point
>>424732
>Metal working on the Northwest Coast pre-dates recorded contact with Europeans or other outsiders. Copper and Iron items have been found in both archaeological and ethnographic collections, and metals, particularly copper have significance in the cultures. The Ozette Indian Village Archeological Site in what is now Washington State was buried by a mudslide some 500 years ago is one example of pre-contact metal items - including iron. In this part of the world the date 1560 (site date - Ozette Indian Village Archeological Site) pre-dates recorded contact with Europeans.
