If the Aboriginals colonized the Americas before the Siberians did, would the colonization of Europeans have failed?

If the Aboriginals colonized the Americas before the Siberians did, would the colonization of Europeans have failed?

if anything it would be easier, natives at least had civilization and armies, can't say the same for abos

Unless they have guns, horses and warships, the Europeans would probably still stomp them.

You are mistaking because you do not take into consideration the million of possible scenarios that could have happened. Idiot.
The Indians lost because of diseases not because of technology, see 1491 and 1493.

Aboriginals have a highly effective fire regime which could have changed the Americas. See the book "the biggest estate on earth".

Abos sleep on the highways and get run over by cars.

/thread

Ignorant idiot, they managed to elaborately use fire to make one giant continent equal to a dinner table.
How on earth could they foresee civilization and the benefits of it if they never witnessed it.

Abo bashing has no place in this topic. Fuck off.

The Indians were decimated by disease, but that only happened after the conquistadors already fucked their shit up (see: Pizzaro)

So why didn't all the other people burn their shit down? Why did the South Americans built incredible cities when they could have just burnt that shit down?

>Aboriginals have a highly effective fire regime

Joke?
Abos were the only people who couldnt produce fire until Europeans arrived (they relied on wild fire caused by thunder)

Stop trying so hard
Even the leftiest of leftards admit that abos are subhumans

>"the biggest estate on earth".
Australia continent was essentially a private hunt reservation owned by a hierarchical society akin to the old forests owned by the english crown for boar hunting etc. the entire continent was a planned literal ecological economy that was maintained through careful planning, oversight, and strip burning.

believe the native ab did something very similar to this all through to east coast it just wasn't as finese an operation

sort of a quasi form of agriculture going back 50,000 years instead of the 5k centricities in the more concentrated technological evolutionary centers of mesopotamia through to the mediteranian through to the glacier melts, doggerland etc, huge geographical shifts that australnesia wasn't subjective to, lower rate of technological innovation resulting because of it. china was the closest hub, the civilisation arose over a greater australnesia ethnograph since that 12k year ago melt, before then the aboriginal people had been spreading and using this system of stable subsistence farming for 10s of thousands of years and had spread it to the americas through the softer faring ocean currents of the mid pacific, like a big natural highway. they were definitely sea fairers, had travelled to africa, asia, america (nth and sth). The entire continent was a well maintained balanced yet delicate interconnected system of trading regions & natural "farming" land subdivided into territories of ownership by regional REX, who probably amongst them had tribal gatherings every once in a while where they would have formed a peaceful form of elder type oligarchy which probably had a hierarchy within itself again.

Instead of tech and conquest they probably had good easy comfortable living and a FUCK TON of DMT usage. These shaman-rex would have been the most spiritual person on earth but dreams don't stop gunpowder & global interconnected- naval logistics.

They prob knew what the fuck was up after Banda genocide etc doe.

Yeah, they'd have burnt down the Amazon

>Why did the South Americans built incredible cities when they could have just burnt that shit down?
I am not sure about the peoples in Mesoamerica, but those in the south did burn forest.
Not according to the book "the biggest estate on earth".

But they didn't turn it into a fucking desert

Yep now you are right. But I am not knowledgeable on how much it was burning or climate change. Probably both.

But I am wondering if the Aboriginals are more resistant on European diseases. Anyone know?

I just started reading more about Aboriginals so.

As far as I know they didn't die en masse to European diseases like Indians did; but I think they have an inborn susceptibility to alcohol

>but I think they have an inborn susceptibility to alcohol
A lot of non-Europeans have it so it seems so.

I wonder the same about western diet. I do not like Aboriginal bashing but most do age horribly.

Not with the Aztecs. The Spanish got stomped when they first tried to take over Tenochtitlan. It was only when they returned after the city had been stricken with plague that they were able to take it.

Australoids are born with DMT in their brains and can be super subjective to pineal gland changes which can arise from direct efforts like ethanole as well as a general meta-awareness of their societal reach/surrounding environment.

When Pizarro arrived the Inca Empire already plunged into civil war due to disease.

we all have DMT in our brains, snowflake.

so then is all brains, illegal?

Yes, brains are illegal.

This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

Ah, that explains it.

They eat horribly.
Also no exposure to alcohol leads to easy susceptibility to quick drunkenness due to lack of historical use. Combine that with trauma/instability and boredom and you have a receipt for disaster.

>The Indians lost because of diseases not because of technology, see 1491 and 1493.
/thread

No they did produce Fire.
On Tasmania it was thought they forgot but it turned out they preferred natural fire.

>they managed to elaborately use fire to make one giant continent equal to a dinner table.
Native Americans terraformed the landscape using burning to better hunt game in both continents so Abo MUH FIRE isnt impressive at all.

As for OP Both continents would be wilderness filled with uncivilized Abo tribes.