Do people actually believe more than 10 million amerindians resided in the pre-Colombian Americas...

> surpass the populations of Europe and the ME
I'm not saying it id, I'm saying more than 10 million for the entire Americas doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility.

>there is a huge left propaganda about how gorillons of natives lived in pre-colombus america
doesn't this just make the europeans look all the more impressive and the natives look even dumber and weaker?

Yes

I was actually wondering this myself. Currently, the further south you go, the larger the native populations. Mexico has like 21 million natives. Reading explorer reports, it seems like they were finding villages up in Canada, and giant civillations down south. So I guess Central/South America was heavily populated, and it was much lower the higher you went north.

You're the one making the ridiculous claim that there were more people in medieval France than in all of the Americas. You back it up.

fucking what

>capitalism killed 1 gorillion people
>whites killed 1 gorillion people
Except we didn't

Sure, if you count all the Americas.
US and Canadian land didn't have more than a few million, though.

The 100 gorillion if pure fantasy though, even if you include the epidemics caused by European.

i didn't make any claim either way you fucking moron
you're the one who strolled into the thread and called everyone an idiot, so why don't you share some of your genius with the rest of us, unless of course you're just pulling shit out of your ass

The whole north america (USA + Canada) have 1 millon as very high.
No, they tell that the natives fought bravely but the diseases, the far advanced weapons of the conquistadores and they use of lies that dont existed in america maked them fall. Yes they claim that the natives dont have the concept of lie.

Do you really need some academic source to tell you there were more people in two continents then there were in any medium-sized European kingdom? 10 million is a fucking tiny number. If you even consider it you're a goddamn idiot.

Here's a paragraph from 'The Incas: New Perspectives' on the population of that empire alone.
>Given the complexity of the population problem and the limitations of all the methodologies used by various scholars, it seems unlikely that we shall ever be able to determine an accurate population figure. Nevertheless, these attempts have helped narrow the range of estimates. Most modern Inca scholars seem to accept and work with figures ranging between 6 million and 14 million people.

And they also had magical abilities

This is from Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs by Micael D. Coe and Rex Koontz.
>It is extraordinarily difficult to estimate the population of the capital in 1519. Many early sources say that there were about 60,000 houses, but none say how many persons there were. Basing his calculations on the Aztec tribute lists, Rudolf van Zantwijk estimates that there were enough foodstuffs in the warehouses of Tenochtitlan to support a population of 350,000, even without taking into account local chinampa production. The data which we have, however flimsy, suggest that Tenochtitlan (with Tlatelolco) had at least 200,000 to 300,000 inhabitants when Cortés marched in, five times the size of the contemporary London of Henry VIII. Quite a number of other cities of central Mexico, such as Texcoco, also had very large populations; all of Mexico between the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and the Chichimec frontier had about 11,000,000 inhabitants, most of whom were under Aztec domination.

>As historian Woodrow Borah has demonstrated, after 1600 New Spain entered a profound “Century of
Depression,” when supplies of both food and labor suffered an enormous drop. That this was a direct
result of a crash in the Indian population is shown by the following figures: in 1519, on the eve of the
Conquest, there were an estimated 11 million souls in central Mexico; by the close of the sixteenth
century, there were only about 2 1⁄2 million Indians left, and by 1650 no more than 1 1⁄2 million, just 13.6
percent of the pre-Conquest total. While the Spanish clergy was prone to ascribe this demographic
disaster to the allegedly drunken habits of their charges, it is clear that the major cause was a series of
great epidemics, beginning in 1520 but especially drastic in 1545–46 and 1576–79. Intolerable working
conditions in the silver mines and on the great estates certainly added to the toll.

>the natives dont have the concept of lie
Man the entire continent could have been wiped out by a single gypsy family.

100 million Native American people in what's now the United States is fucking impossible. The US didn't have 100 million people until about 1920.

Even among the combined area of North and South America that seems highly improbable. The Roman area AT ITS PEAK had a total population of about 60-70 million people and an area comparable to large New World Countries like America, Canada, or Brazil. However, none of those areas had civilizations anywhere close to Roman levels of economy. The only areas that came close were tiny areas of Meso-America and the Andes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empire

100 million is probably far too high, but 10 million is far too low. While the exact numbers are a matter of significant debate, there does seem to be a consensus that the Inca Empire contained 5-15 million people. Similarly, the Triple Alliance probably ruled over 5-10 million people, with at least a few million more people living in the rest of Mesoamerica. 20 million people in the Americas is probably the bottom end of any realistic estimate. The real wildcard is the rest North America. There's still a lot of debate on how densely populated it was. I'm of the opinion that it wouldn't have been more than a few million at most, but there's not enough evidence for anyone to really know.

All that said, calling the collapse of native populations a genocide is a joke. Europeans did a lot of terrible things during the colonial period, but disease did most of the killing. Even then, natives were not a homogeneous group and were more than happy to kill each other, or colonists, for resources and territory.

Good post.

I'd say North American populations were a few million considering the Mississippian culture and other farming socities like the Pueblo. There was nothing like the density of Mesoamerica in even the most developed Mississippian areas though.

Don't forget they were also probably STRAIGHT!

>A civilization that only existed for a few centuries couldn't surpass the populations of Europe and the ME combined
They had a significant advantage over both places. Their crops were awesome.

Therefore holding them to the same standard is idiotic. In fact treating the growth of any civilizations with completely different geography and biodiversity the same is idiotic.

Corn and especially potato can both sustain larger populations than wheat can. This is similar to both India and China whose main crop, rice, can also sustain a larger population than wheat.

I actually live very close to Cahokia and while some of the sites are impressive, you can really tell that they never really reached that same developmental peak. 10-20 thousand people is impressive for its time, but that very well may have been the largest city north of Mexico.

He's sort of right though, morally speaking Europeans deserve their shit pushed in. I don't view history in terms of morality though (because that's retarded) but rather see it as "Europe was strong enough to do X, so it did X, just as any other group would"

might makes right whether you like it or not dipshit

That's literally nigger mentality. "It is ok if I stab you and rape your gf, if I am strong and sneaky enough"?

You're right. And it's what Europeans did.

Native genocide is a meme.

Only Mexico, Peru/Bolivia and Guatemala had advanced empires with agriculture that could support millions. This is the reason these countries are still mostly brown even today. In fact, Guatemala and Bolivia are still fullblooded indigenous-majority.

Outside of these regions, the Americas were mostly empty - Populated with hunter-gatherer tribes and very primitive agrarian societies that numbered in the thousands.

>ok
It's not "ok," but the only way to make things "ok" is to exert a stronger and opposite force. Might makes "ok."
>p-p-please mister don't stab me and rape my gf
>no
What now? This is why I CC. The most fatal flaw of 21st century humanity is the assumption that there is an inherent goodness to our kind.

It's pretty simple. America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans. How is this hard to get?

Incas managed to organize armies of almost 100000 soldiers according to spanish and inca records from the 16th century.

So It's probable that Incas had a population of 10+millions.

Native Americans continued to reproduce after initial European Expansion into the Americas. And wars continued to be fought with them for the next 400 years. It's entirely possible that 100 million did die within that time span. You guys are acting as if they all dropped dead at once. Obviously these things take time.

That's literally reptile mentality, actually.

No, that's the mentality of social autists who don't understand human social dynamics and sit around all day jerking their chodes to loli porn and think that they would have been rich and successful if only uncle Adolf had won the war.

Even reptiles go through courtship rituals

What about the recent giant population boom in Africa?

Academic consensus is that about 60% of the natives were killed off, making the pre-columbian North American Indian population in 7 digit territory.

good jpg

Lmao, communists are subhuman.

>do people actually believe facts?
Yes they do.

1492 is the year subhumans reached the sacred land and started replacing superior beings with their pestilence. Truly the worst tragedy humanity has faced.

>superior beings
>brought down by a cough

The pic seems to imply that 100 million lived on the lands that are now the USA.

Some people.
Here in Nova Scotia, a census was done by the French and the English, and the numbers of Indians actually go up.
In Nova Scotia, for example, only a few thousand Natives lived. With all that fish, berries, and trees; only a few thousand.

And the reason I know that there was no native genocide, is because I'm part Mikmaq. My relatives and ancestors picked on black people more than natives.

>And the reason I know that there was no native genocide, is because I'm part Mikmaq.
b-but the tiny amount of people that Cornwallis had scalped because they started scalping first

It would be impossible to kill that many indians.
Even in Germany, where every corner of the country was monitored, it was still impossible to get rid of all Jews and Gypsies; there was still millions left.
North America is an entire continent; to exterminate even 100,000 Indians would be impossible.

Pre-Columbian population estimates is something over which historians have been slamming their heads againt the wall for 150 years. You just CAN'T get absolutely correct numbers, it's all about estimation.

Most likely there were 30 to 40 million people living in all of Americas before Columbus. North America was certainly less populated, with roughly 8-10 million. Spanish sources are interesting in that regard because they offer very high numbers. For example de las Casas says in 1508 that there were 3 million Tainos living in Hispaniola alone.

What is certain is that most of the depopulation happened swiftly upon European arrival in 16th century, and that it lasted for about half a century. Those that didn't die from initial violence perished from hard labor in Spanish mines and plantations, and finally by epidemic that raged for about several decades. Epidemic was especially quick and brutal, for example the Aztecs already came in contact with small pox epidemic even before they faced the conquistadors and Cortes.

What is also certain is that by 1600 the territory of New Spain was very scarcely populated, barely 5 million people, including European settlers. The massive depopulation of natives was one of the reason for bringing black workforce from Africa to New World. In fact already in early 16th century de las Casas whom i mentioned above called for importing slaves from Africa to substitute dying native workforce. Such was the amount of devastation.

/thread

There were 15-25 millions in Mesoamerica alone. And Mesoamerica was a third the size of the Andean region.

>These raised, well-watered beds had very high crop yields with up to 7 harvests a year.[10]

>(About Tlatelolco) The bustle and noise occasioned by this multitude of human beings was so great that it could be heard at a distance of more than four miles. Some of our men, who had been at Constantinople and Rome, and travelled through the whole of Italy, said that they never had seen a market-place of such large dimensions, or which was so well regulated and with such order, or so crowded with people as this one at Mexico.
- The True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Chapter XCII

Spanish soldiers and colonists estimated that about 60 000 people thronged the market regularly prior to the introduction of epidemic diseases, a number equivalent to the population of contemporary's Rome, Renaissance's Florence and the Lisbon of the Age of Discovery.

>"On their route they passed through three provinces, that, according to the report of the Spaniards, contained very fine land, many villages and cities, with much scattered population, and buildings equal to any in Spain. They mentioned particularly a house and castle, the latter larger, of greater strength, and better built than the castle of Burgos (the castle of the kings of Spain); and the people of one of these provinces, called Tamazulapa, were better clothed than those of any other we had seen, as it justly appeared to them."
- Hernan Cortes, Second Letter of Relation to Charles V

>Similarly, the Triple Alliance probably ruled over 5-10 million people, with at least a few million more people living in the rest of Mesoamerica
Mesoamerica was quite more than just the Triple Alliance.

>Japan 15 million
>Mexico 8
"oldest companies in the world" tier meme

>the pinacle of eurangutan superiority are pigs
Hmm...

Amerindian superior development rate is a historical fact. How is this hard to get? Are you an eurangutan? hehehe

>in 1519, on the eve of the
>Conquest, there were an estimated 11 million souls in central Mexico
check out his later collaborations with Cook

diseases from the new world introduced to the old world:
- a bed bug infection
- syphilis (disputed)

diseases from the old world introduced to the new world:
- bubonic plague
- chicken pox
- cholera
- diphtheria
- influenza
- leprosy
- malaria
- measles
- scarlet fever
- smallpox
- typhoid
- typhus
- whooping cough
- yaws
- yellow fever

The Bubonic Plague alone killed 25% to 60% of the European population during the 14th century, Natives survived the introduction of all the diseases above within a century.

>muh communist conspiracy

>dindu muffin!!

t. Pinochet

Then you have no problem to go back to europe though. America for the Amerindians.

Criminally underrated post.

saved

>steal land
>steal identity
>infiltrate host countries via evil divide and conquer tactics without honor such as was unimaginable to normal people
>be materialistic and hedonistic to a ridiculous and quite pathetic amount
>exterminate, exploit and sterilize millions of people on the whole planet with only like 2 countries not being unaffected (Japan and some regions in China)
>centuries later make fun of 3rd worlders in racist cartoons
>kill your neighbor instead of love thy neighbor became the national sport for over 1000 years with uncle adolf hosting the great finale
>become increasingly more degenerate every decade

That is the name of the game, everybody does it but we just happen to be the best at it. You fight wars on absolutely no terms but the ones you hold yourself to, and to assume otherwise from others is fucking retarded, plus the Amerindians have been slaughtering each other for centuries before the first white man reached American shores. If you honestly believed that wars between the various tribes and peoples of per-colonial America was restrained to ritual-wars and minor conflicts rather than genocide and slaughtering like it was literally everywhere fucking else then you are a delusional brainlet who just believes whatever he reads without using an iota of the common sense inherent in all men to understand that he shouldn't take everything he reads at face value.

>best
>literally waiting for the pestilence to kill natives
You mean best at being pigs?

1492 is the year subhumans profaned the sacred lands of America and spread a mortal pestilence that doomed the world. America is Amerindian land. Deal with it, subhuman.

We dont have the same triggers for population booms that existed circa the 13th century user.

Highly nutritious food comes from everywhere including whatever geographic region you're in and as money accumulates increasingly sophisticated medical methods to stave off death in both individuals and groups become available.

Couple that with education (or lack ther of) and a plethora of related economic and political factors and you start to see that modern population growth is a phenomena that isn't readily comparable with historic civilizations.

Except we're not talking about the United States.