Black plague comes to europe through contact with asians

The Mongol invasions are almost twice as distant in the past as the settlement of the Americas. The Mongol invasions in the end changed very little of the European landscape, politically or socially. Meanwhile the colonization of the new world had profound changes for the entirety of the planet.

Also the Muslims (Iran in particular) treat the Mongol invasions as one of/the greatest calamities that ever occurred for them, and I'm willing to guess that most of that part of the world couldn't give less of a shit about what happened to a bunch of pagan injuns.

>reduce native Europeans to less than 1% of Europe's total population

neither did the european settlement of the new world.

the great reduction of indian population was due to diseases. Just like the black plague greatly reduced the european population. You are losing track of this key point

Yeah but native Europeans didn't get reduced to less than 1% of Europe's total populations as the asians settled across all of Europe.

That's because Europeans had a bigger population. Indians didn't, so each death compared effected their numbers more than Europeans. Nothing more.

>omg such revolting
You're the one implying I see it as a good thing.

And both you and I know that you're equating European style slave trade, which singled out a race, with the phenomenon of slavery in history to claim some sort of moral high ground. Sorry, Europe is alone in singling out a race for slaves, and making up religions, and then afterwards pseudoscientific, narratives to dehumanize a whole race for slavery. As far as Asians were concerned, slaves were so because they were slaves, period. So yeah, Europe is literally much worse.

Talk about duplicity.

You mean Central European/Muslim Slave trade?

Because slavery is outlawed in China.

So is that, in your view, which makes one a genocide and one not? Because the indians were reduced to around 1% of their population (keep in mind this is only the indian population in what is currently the US, east of the mississippi, so not the entirety of the americas) and Europe was reduced to 30-60% of its population in the black plague?

So why are europeans guilty of genocide, while we dont really give that much of a shit in terms of blaming anyone for the black plague? Im also not advocating we starting blaming asians btw. Just pointing something out.

>That's because Europeans had a bigger population.
Estimates are about the same, ~100 million peak for Europe pre-plague, ~112 million for America pre-Columbus.

I'm fairly certain that if asians had settled all of Europe and reduce native Europeans to less than 1% of Europe's total population then there would be cries of genocide too

>Sorry, Europe is alone in singling out a race for slaves, and making up religions, and then afterwards pseudoscientific, narratives to dehumanize a whole race for slavery. As far as Asians were concerned, slaves were so because they were slaves, period. So yeah, Europe is literally much worse.

this is exactly what I accused you of lol. You think one form of slavery is morally better than another if you enslave more than one race.

Also, we didnt single out one race. Europeans enslaved everyone throughout history.

>Believing the Facebook tier memes of a 100 million Indians in today's America

>and reduce native Europeans to less than 1% of Europe's total population

But this is implying thats what the Europeans did, when it was disease.

Central Asian*

Please stop. No respected archeologist or historian believes there were 100 million Natives in the Americas. There's absolutely no evidence to back it up. 100 million is quite literally the upper edge of estimates and it was only through afro-centrist tier pseudo-anthropology that it became a thing. Just stop.

Disease, deliberate attempts to drive them out and/or exterminate them, and deliberate attempts to use disease to drive them out and/or exterminate them.

Hey, isn't OP that guy from that Veeky Forums thread earlier today? He couldn't bear to handle the argument THERE, so he moved it over here?

>Morally better.
Going for "One act was worse than the other."
>Also, we didnt single out one race.
Except it did boil down into one race.

The word you're looking for is "the vast majority of slaves there were one race". White slaves DID exist in America, but they were pretty heavily outweighed by the amount of slaves from Africa and the Caribbean.

Not whites

Doesn't sound like the Black Death was deliberate, though.

>Disease, deliberate attempts to drive them out and/or exterminate them

no, the HUGE majority of the reduction in native population was from disease.

> and deliberate attempts to use disease to drive them out and/or exterminate them.

source? You do realize the smallpox blanket story is complete bullshit, right?

>Hey, isn't OP that guy from that Veeky Forums thread earlier today? He couldn't bear to handle the argument THERE, so he moved it over here?

Literally have no idea what you are talking about

>Going for "One act was worse than the other."

exactly, just like I said. You would see enslaving europeans and africans as morally better than enslaving just africans. Also, this isnt the point of this thread anyway, so Im just going to agree to disagree with you on this slavery topic.

>Meanwhile who singled out one race for slaves
I don't know, the other tribesmen who captured them?

The Dutch only bought them.

>So slavery is okay as long as its equal in terms of who is taken as slaves?
I think he's trying to infer some white conspiracy to enslave blacks

Accusations of genocide in the Americas are not accurate. But the outcome of the population displacement in the Americas versus the lack of population displacement in Europe are very different. People who cry genocide are wrong but this is why they do it. Does that satisfy?

>People who cry genocide are wrong but this is why they do it. Does that satisfy?

not really, because the difference is that more of a percentage of indians died to europeans, which I admit is a more devastating blow, but how does that make one genocide and one not?

thats sort of like saying the armenian genocide isnt a genocide because only 1 million died, compared to the 11 million in the holocaust by their logic

Do most people think the slave trade was like the beginning of Roots where white men capture individual Africans in nets like Rabbits?

Hell, there were entire Societies in Africa that made a living capturing their neighbors and selling them off to Europeans.

I'm not saying it's right, and who honestly would, but this whole meme of a United Africa subjugated by the White Man is retarded

So the widespread plagues caused through foreign interaction just completely negates the fact that the treatment of the Indians by the Spanish, the storied history of Indian removal throughout colonial times, the Trail of Tears, and the wide number of American Indian wars that often resulted in entire villages being razed? Those don't counts as attempts to either exterminate the Indian people or remove their cultures?

Also, you're the one who suggested the use of smallpox blankets.

>Literally have no idea what you are talking about
Must've been someone ELSE who was irrationally fired up about what people call the tragedies that occurred to the native Americans. My mistake.

>So the widespread plagues caused through foreign interaction just completely negates the fact that the treatment of the Indians by the Spanish, ect.

literally a strawman. I never said anything close to that. Im calling out the idea that they were genocided when it was a plague, basically, that wiped them out.

>Must've been someone ELSE who was irrationally fired up

You are clearly more fired up and emotional about this than I am, but I dont see what any of this has to do with the topic at hand.

Well there are still europeans, many natives lineages were wiped, there are still the same cities in europe, show me one native city left?

>show me one native city left?

>stoneage tier nomadic tribes

>cities

lol

also, pic related

It's not only the raw numbers/percentages but also the fact the the "invaders" moved into the Americas and prevented the native population from regenerating, whereas this did not happen in Europe.

The end result looks suspiciously similar to an invading people conquering and killing another people and taking their land, although this is not accurate in this case. Another consideration is that genocide is a relatively modern word when considering events this far back, and may be a simple misapplication of modern concepts to historical events.

Additionally there were several individual Europeans who openly wrote about the extermination of natives or advocated for their removal such as Vasco Núñez de Balboa, although their views may not have reflected the large majority of Europeans.

I'd like to reiterate that scholars do not agree that the depopulation of the Americas constituted a genocide.

I'm noticing a disgusting trend here, wherein the conquests by Spain, England, and the US are all being merged together in terms of severity.

This is a mistake.

Tenochtitlan is called Mexico City today

Neither was smallpox or any other European diseases.

The limited use of Smallpox Blankets can be equated to the equally limited use of Dead Bodies infected with Plague used against the Venetians by the Mongols.

He's obviously talking about the bronze age non-nomadic tribes

>Singled out one race

Not the other user, but no, you fucking retard. Slaves in the americas were african because west africa was the best source of slaves for them.

It had large settled populations and states who were willing to trade large ammounts of slaves. Compare this to the americas where nativr americans had much lower population densities, and one had to go through all the trouble to actually capture slaves from small tribes, rather than just buying them from a warlord that knocked over a city in africa.

If you want examples of europeans enslaving other races, just look at the Dutch. The majority of the slaves in the Cape colony in South Africa were of Indonesian or Malaysian origin, beacuse it was dangerous and inefficient to try to take slaves from the black populations that lived on the colony's borders.

Iraq as well, they act like the sack of Baghdad happened last month

>Europeans came in and raped and pillaged
t. high school social studies teacher

What evidence is there that there was a holocaust committed by a non-Spain European nation on the Native Americans?

But Asians didn't conquer Europe. If Genghis swept in and added Western Europe to his Khanate it would be a different story.

Yeah, but the massacres of those zones killed 90% of the population, destroyed of the most ancient and developed cities on the planet, and made the whole place more arid, so of course they are pissed.

>Spaniards literally raped their way through America

>even fucking Columbus himself recorded his rapes of natives and his fellow sailors raping natives in his diary

>WHITEY DINDU NUFFIN WE WUZ ALL PEACFUL TRADERS AN SHEET

Post the stories please.

How did they rape them?

I've always wondered how the FIRST contact between Spaniards and the natives went.

How did they communicate, how did they look at eachother, etc.

Probably something like this: youtube.com/watch?v=_JXcWwHxCBE

Michele de Cuneo, one of his best friends, writing proudly about raping a woman given to him by Columbus in a letter to a friend:

>"While I was in the boat, I captured a very beautiful woman, whom the Lord Admiral [Columbus] gave to me. When I had taken her to my cabin she was naked — as was their custom. I was filled with a desire to take my pleasure with her and attempted to satisfy my desire. She was unwilling, and so treated me with her nails that I wished I had never begun. I then took a piece of rope and whipped her soundly, and she let forth such incredible screams that you would not have believed your ears. Eventually we came to such terms, I assure you, that you would have thought she had been brought up in a school for whores."

huffingtonpost.com/eric-kasum/columbus-day-a-bad-idea_b_742708.html

>atheist's reaction to Jesus Christ's second coming

...

This made me tear up for some reason.

>30%

so how is this genocide again?

>top left
RARE SKELTAL

So how come we're not demanding reparations from Mongolians?

So slavery is only wrong if it's racist or is it only when it's done toward innocent peaceful Africans?

They still only did it to other groups or tribes. At what point does it become racism? Wait I thought race didn't exist.

>some

Yeah like 90%, faggot

They don't demonize "the Spanish" because it relates bad feelings to the word Spanish, and thus people that speak the language, Hispanics. Notice when they criticize the Spanish they talk specifically about "Columbus" and minimalize mention of the actual group that did it. They want people to associate the actions of Columbus with white people, the proposed oppressor class, and Hispanics as the proposed oppressed class who can not be criticized. This creates a modern day bourgeois vs proletariat, I wonder what the end game could possibly be.

There's a war on your mind and you lost to the special interest. The very strange, anti white special interest. They're using you like the used the Russians, they'll seize control and you'll be the first up against the wall. Stop dividing your own damn people.

That article is a perfect example of what I'm talking about

>Christopher Columbus
>Catholic
>American
>European
What do you think they're trying to get your brain to associate this shitbag with? He is indeed a shitbag, but they're using him to promote an anti white cause.

I didn't even make it past 3-4 paragraphs and found these gems:
>"natives" were there first! that makes then entitled to ever spec of dirt and tree
>raped girls
>killed babies for dog food
>turned natives into lampshades

>smallpox blankets
Did they even have a notion of contamination and infectiousness?

>>"natives" were there first!

The smallpox blankets are a gigantic meme, it was mentioned exactly ONCE by some Anglo colonial in the 18th century and as a proposition at that and somehow people ended up believing the Euros were indulging in mass extermination bio warfare since the 1400s or something.

>WE WUZ CHIEFTAINS N SHIEEEET

Got a source?
Beat me to it.

I've heard about the theory that the natives displaced another predecessor people, but what do we really know about them? Do we even know for sure if they actually existed?

And we need to counter that with
>so fucking what?

It happens along time ago. So did a lot of bad things. We don't do shit like that anymore. Move on.

Well the asians did not settle european lands and out-breed their populations.

>"Meanwhile who singled out one race for slaves?"
>Implying the Americas never ever experienced slavery before the arrival of the europeans
>Implying the europeans were the only ones to ever practice slavery
>Implying slavery has never been practiced in Europe by europeans to europeans
You sure made a great contribution to the thread, kid. What's next? "Europeans are the only ones who have ever waged war in the history of mankind!"?

They tried many times... Muslims, Mongols, Huns, Moors, etc.

I think you must have added an extra 110 million there Pablo

>Got a source?

hurr durr wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis

It is true that 90% of native deaths were from disease, but European settlers were at the time also invading and conquering the Americas. European diseases made their job easier. Conversely, the black plague did not coincide with any simultaneous invasion and Europe was left alone to the degree that it could recover over time. It's not hard to believe that we would have killed those 90% through other means over a protracted period if warfare had we not been so lucky.

If we had not been so lucky*

>It's not hard to believe that we would have killed those 90% through other means over a protracted period if warfare had we not been so lucky.

>even though europeans didnt do it, they probably would have

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis

>In 2014, the autosomal DNA of a 12,500+-year-old infant from Montana was sequenced.[15] The DNA was taken from a skeleton referred to as Anzick-1, found in close association with several Clovis artifacts. Comparisons showed strong affinities with DNA from Siberian sites, and the report stated that "In agreement with previous archaeological and genetic studies our genome analysis refutes the possibility that Clovis originated via a European (Solutrean) migration to the Americas." The DNA also showed strong affinities with all existing Native American populations, which indicated that all of them derive from an ancient population that lived in or near Siberia, the Upper Palaeolithic Mal'ta population.[16] Anzick-1 Y-haplogroup is Q.

>A 2008 study of relevant oceanographic data from the time period in question, co-authored by Kieran Westley and Justin Dix, concluded, however, that "it is clear from the paleoceanographic and paleo-environmental data that the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) in the North Atlantic does not fit the descriptions provided by the proponents of the Solutrean Atlantic Hypothesis. Although ice use and sea mammal hunting may have been important in other contexts, in this instance, the conditions militate against an ice-edge-following, maritime-adapted European population reaching the Americas."[19] Relying on the location of the ice shelf at the time of the putative Atlantic crossing, they are skeptical that a transoceanic voyage to North America, even allowing for the judicious use of glaciers and ice floes as temporary stopping points and sources of fresh water, would have been feasible for people from the Solutrean era.

Man, even the Austronesian Hypothesis is better than this, even if they're about 7000 years too late.

So basically their foundation is about as solid as styrofoam, got it.

And this is why Indians don't poo in loos?
Really makes you think.

natives were lousy slaves, that's why they got some negroes there in the first place.

>europoors get memed on by the rest of the world from the fall of the Roman Empire to the 1500's
just history lmao

>europoors meme on the rest of the world
AHH NOT MY POC GENOCIDE

Ever been to Hungary?

I've yet to meet anyone who seriously who actually blames Europeans for the disease side of the native genocide. They had no way of knowing what they were carrying, or that the natives were weak to disease.

Britbongs enslaved and sent to America half of Scotland you retard

This. Same shit happened with the Aztecs, Cortez barely made it out alive at first, it wasnt until he came back with a bigger army and found them all half dead from sickness that they were easily btfo.

They werent found half dead though, half of them literally were dead. The ones still alive were weak.

WE WUZ TURANS N SHIET

there is no double standard. people just don't know it was through contact with asians

>Sorry, Europe is alone in singling out a race for slaves

Europe is also alone in not only abolishing slave trade and slavery completely before any other part of the world, but also forcing other countries around the world to abolish it too.

It happened exactly the other way around in Hungary, they are Europeans genetically.

Why would a hispanic even try to argue this, if anything they were 10 times shitter to Natives.

>muh 112 million
Are Indians the prototypical Jews?