Genocide And The NFL

[dal4018]

Just saw this about The San Francisco 49ers https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oSAdfeD6 ... ture=share

[Gil Dobie]

Just saw this about The San Francisco 49ers https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oSAdfeD6 ... ture=share

Could probably say that about several team nicknames. Patriots, Commanders, Buffalo Bills, Texans, Cowboys, Vikings, Rangers, etc.

[kalm]

When Columbus landed, population estimates of the Americas were are as high as 90 million people 1/3 of the world’s population.

[Winterborn]

When Columbus landed, population estimates of the Americas were are as high as 90 million people 1/3 of the world’s population.

Finally a rabbit hole I know something about.

That's one theory, others have it around 8 million, ranges from a million to 118 million. Depends on how one considers the lands carrying capacity, starting point, and who is doing the calculations (some of larger ranges are a bit suspect in their methodology).

William Denevan did alot of research into the topic and estimated it around 53 million with a 20% margin of error. With a breakdown of 3.8 million living in North America, the rest in Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean and South America. Disease, warfare, slavery cut that by 89% by the 16th century.

[UNI88]

When Columbus landed, population estimates of the Americas were are as high as 90 million people 1/3 of the world’s population.

Finally a rabbit hole I know something about.

That's one theory, others have it around 8 million, ranges from a million to 118 million. Depends on how one considers the lands carrying capacity, starting point, and who is doing the calculations (some of larger ranges are a bit suspect in their methodology).

William Denevan did alot of research into the topic and estimated it around 53 million with a 20% margin of error. With a breakdown of 3.8 million living in North America, the rest in Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean and South America. Disease, warfare, slavery cut that by 89% by the 16th century.

90 million seems high. 53 million also seems high but makes sense with the higher populations in Mexico, Central America and South America. There weren't a lot of denser population centers in what is now the US and Canada that I'm aware of outside of possibly Cahokia.

Any book recommendations for the topic?

[AshevilleApp]

Finally a rabbit hole I know something about.

That's one theory, others have it around 8 million, ranges from a million to 118 million. Depends on how one considers the lands carrying capacity, starting point, and who is doing the calculations (some of larger ranges are a bit suspect in their methodology).

William Denevan did alot of research into the topic and estimated it around 53 million with a 20% margin of error. With a breakdown of 3.8 million living in North America, the rest in Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean and South America. Disease, warfare, slavery cut that by 89% by the 16th century.

90 million seems high. 53 million also seems high but makes sense with the higher populations in Mexico, Central America and South America. There weren't a lot of denser population centers in what is now the US and Canada that I'm aware of outside of possibly Cahokia.

Any book recommendations for the topic?

1491

[Winterborn]

Finally a rabbit hole I know something about.

That's one theory, others have it around 8 million, ranges from a million to 118 million. Depends on how one considers the lands carrying capacity, starting point, and who is doing the calculations (some of larger ranges are a bit suspect in their methodology).

William Denevan did alot of research into the topic and estimated it around 53 million with a 20% margin of error. With a breakdown of 3.8 million living in North America, the rest in Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean and South America. Disease, warfare, slavery cut that by 89% by the 16th century.

90 million seems high. 53 million also seems high but makes sense with the higher populations in Mexico, Central America and South America. There weren't a lot of denser population centers in what is now the US and Canada that I'm aware of outside of possibly Cahokia.

Any book recommendations for the topic?

You are correct that the only empires of the Aztecs, Mayans, and Inca's held most of the populations. Denevan had it split up for 8.6 million in the South America lowlands, Andes (15.7 million), Caribbean (3 million), Mexico (17.2 million), Central America (5.6 million), and Northa America (3.8 million). Personally I think 53 million is still high but like I mentioned above, it depends on what time range one picks. What I find a bit more fascinating is why the native populations did not have as strong as immune resistance as they should have.


As App mention 1491 by Charles C Mann is good (I haven't read it but heard good things about it). The author I mentioned above specifically deals with population, where as 1491 by Mann is more broad about the America's in general.

William Denevan's book "The Native Population of the Americas in 1492" is collection of academic papers of the time and some explanations. It is older (re-published in 1992) but still has a good well rounded look at the population question in general. It is also the only book that I know of that deals strictly with the population question.

[kalm]

90 million seems high. 53 million also seems high but makes sense with the higher populations in Mexico, Central America and South America. There weren't a lot of denser population centers in what is now the US and Canada that I'm aware of outside of possibly Cahokia.

Any book recommendations for the topic?

You are correct that the only empires of the Aztecs, Mayans, and Inca's held most of the populations. Denevan had it split up for 8.6 million in the South America lowlands, Andes (15.7 million), Caribbean (3 million), Mexico (17.2 million), Central America (5.6 million), and Northa America (3.8 million). Personally I think 53 million is still high but like I mentioned above, it depends on what time range one picks. What I find a bit more fascinating is why the native populations did not have as strong as immune resistance as they should have.


As App mention 1491 by Charles C Mann is good (I haven't read it but heard good things about it). The author I mentioned above specifically deals with population, where as 1491 by Mann is more broad about the America's in general.

William Denevan's book "The Native Population of the Americas in 1492" is collection of academic papers of the time and some explanations. It is older (re-published in 1992) but still has a good well rounded look at the population question in general. It is also the only book that I know of that deals strictly with the population question.

Good stuff, WB.

[UNI88]

90 million seems high. 53 million also seems high but makes sense with the higher populations in Mexico, Central America and South America. There weren't a lot of denser population centers in what is now the US and Canada that I'm aware of outside of possibly Cahokia.

Any book recommendations for the topic?

You are correct that the only empires of the Aztecs, Mayans, and Inca's held most of the populations. Denevan had it split up for 8.6 million in the South America lowlands, Andes (15.7 million), Caribbean (3 million), Mexico (17.2 million), Central America (5.6 million), and Northa America (3.8 million). Personally I think 53 million is still high but like I mentioned above, it depends on what time range one picks. What I find a bit more fascinating is why the native populations did not have as strong as immune resistance as they should have.

As App mention 1491 by Charles C Mann is good (I haven't read it but heard good things about it). The author I mentioned above specifically deals with population, where as 1491 by Mann is more broad about the America's in general.

William Denevan's book "The Native Population of the Americas in 1492" is collection of academic papers of the time and some explanations. It is older (re-published in 1992) but still has a good well rounded look at the population question in general. It is also the only book that I know of that deals strictly with the population question.

I would flip that and wonder why there weren't also diseases that the native populations were resistant too that devastated Europeans without that resistance?

[Winterborn]

You are correct that the only empires of the Aztecs, Mayans, and Inca's held most of the populations. Denevan had it split up for 8.6 million in the South America lowlands, Andes (15.7 million), Caribbean (3 million), Mexico (17.2 million), Central America (5.6 million), and Northa America (3.8 million). Personally I think 53 million is still high but like I mentioned above, it depends on what time range one picks. What I find a bit more fascinating is why the native populations did not have as strong as immune resistance as they should have.

As App mention 1491 by Charles C Mann is good (I haven't read it but heard good things about it). The author I mentioned above specifically deals with population, where as 1491 by Mann is more broad about the America's in general.

William Denevan's book "The Native Population of the Americas in 1492" is collection of academic papers of the time and some explanations. It is older (re-published in 1992) but still has a good well rounded look at the population question in general. It is also the only book that I know of that deals strictly with the population question.

I would flip that and wonder why there weren't also diseases that the native populations were resistant too that devastated Europeans without that resistance?

That is a very good question and one of the current theories is that the typical animal or plant carriers here in the America's were sanitized somehow, so the local inhabitants lost what resistance they had coming over here from Asia, Europe, and Africa. They basically had a very weak immune system that was tailored to their environment, which lacked the normal hosts that other parts of the world had and built up the resistances of their populations. There is some speculation that when the Vikings and Welsh came over here long before Columbus that their interactions started the process. But we don't know for sure. And outside of time machine we may never know.

[UNI88]

I would flip that and wonder why there weren't also diseases that the native populations were resistant too that devastated Europeans without that resistance?

That is a very good question and one of the current theories is that the typical animal or plant carriers here in the America's were sanitized somehow, so the local inhabitants lost what resistance they had coming over here from Asia, Europe, and Africa. They basically had a very weak immune system that was tailored to their environment, which lacked the normal hosts that other parts of the world had and built up the resistances of their populations. There is some speculation that when the Vikings and Welsh came over here long before Columbus that their interactions started the process. But we don't know for sure. And outside of time machine we may never know.

That is fascinating and you are correct about the time machine.

Is it talked about in Denevan's works?

[GannonFan]

I would flip that and wonder why there weren't also diseases that the native populations were resistant too that devastated Europeans without that resistance?

That is a very good question and one of the current theories is that the typical animal or plant carriers here in the America's were sanitized somehow, so the local inhabitants lost what resistance they had coming over here from Asia, Europe, and Africa. They basically had a very weak immune system that was tailored to their environment, which lacked the normal hosts that other parts of the world had and built up the resistances of their populations. There is some speculation that when the Vikings and Welsh came over here long before Columbus that their interactions started the process. But we don't know for sure. And outside of time machine we may never know.

I think you're right - and the Europeans simply had much more variety of domesticated animals, as well as the interaction of those animals across Europe, Asia, and Africa, that it just added more oomph to the evolution of diseases and viruses.

I still think the crazy number is that of the deaths of native people's in the America's, the estimate is that 90% of the population was killed off by disease alone. We think a bad flu season or a COVID pandemic is big, but that's a tiny fraction of the deaths due to disease as compared with what befell folks living here before Columbus and other Europeans got here.

[Winterborn]

That is a very good question and one of the current theories is that the typical animal or plant carriers here in the America's were sanitized somehow, so the local inhabitants lost what resistance they had coming over here from Asia, Europe, and Africa. They basically had a very weak immune system that was tailored to their environment, which lacked the normal hosts that other parts of the world had and built up the resistances of their populations. There is some speculation that when the Vikings and Welsh came over here long before Columbus that their interactions started the process. But we don't know for sure. And outside of time machine we may never know.

I think you're right - and the Europeans simply had much more variety of domesticated animals, as well as the interaction of those animals across Europe, Asia, and Africa, that it just added more oomph to the evolution of diseases and viruses.

I still think the crazy number is that of the deaths of native people's in the America's, the estimate is that 90% of the population was killed off by disease alone. We think a bad flu season or a COVID pandemic is big, but that's a tiny fraction of the deaths due to disease as compared with what befell folks living here before Columbus and other Europeans got here.

Add in the trade between those locations that had been going on for 1000's of years, and you have a pretty big mixing bowl.

[dal4018]

Glad to see ppl respond to this article

[JohnStOnge]

Just saw this about The San Francisco 49ers https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oSAdfeD6 ... ture=share

Could probably say that about several team nicknames. Patriots, Commanders, Buffalo Bills, Texans, Cowboys, Vikings, Rangers, etc.

Yes doing that sort of thing was just what Homo sapiens did until relatively recent history. I think most people have heard about how brutal the Mayans, Aztecs, and Incas were. But the North American natives were brutal too. I read relatively recently about how brutal the Comanches were. They did their best to complete genocide against the Apaches and came pretty close to succeeding. They were really into torture, rape, etc. They also kept captives as slaves.

it's true that people from Europe did horrible things to other people. But so did people from Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Don't know about Australia but my guess is that if I looked into it I'd find brutality among the original inhabitants there as well. The biggest thing about the Europeans is that the world came to a point in history where their military and transportation technologies were so much superior to those of other lands that they ended up pretty much taking over completely. They were the ones generally on top when the species matured to a point of starting to think wiping out, oppressing, enslaving other people is wrong.

[dal4018]

Could probably say that about several team nicknames. Patriots, Commanders, Buffalo Bills, Texans, Cowboys, Vikings, Rangers, etc.

Yes doing that sort of thing was just what Homo sapiens did until relatively recent history. I think most people have heard about how brutal the Mayans, Aztecs, and Incas were. But the North American natives were brutal too. I read relatively recently about how brutal the Comanches were. They did their best to complete genocide against the Apaches and came pretty close to succeeding. They were really into torture, rape, etc. They also kept captives as slaves.

it's true that people from Europe did horrible things to other people. But so did people from Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Don't know about Australia but my guess is that if I looked into it I'd find brutality among the original inhabitants there as well. The biggest thing about the Europeans is that the world came to a point in history where their military and transportation technologies were so much superior to those of other lands that they ended up pretty much taking over completely. They were the ones generally on top when the species matured to a point of starting to think wiping out, oppressing, enslaving other people is wrong.

Nothing shocks me about this country.

[UNI88]

Could probably say that about several team nicknames. Patriots, Commanders, Buffalo Bills, Texans, Cowboys, Vikings, Rangers, etc.

Yes doing that sort of thing was just what Homo sapiens did until relatively recent history. I think most people have heard about how brutal the Mayans, Aztecs, and Incas were. But the North American natives were brutal too. I read relatively recently about how brutal the Comanches were. They did their best to complete genocide against the Apaches and came pretty close to succeeding. They were really into torture, rape, etc. They also kept captives as slaves.

it's true that people from Europe did horrible things to other people. But so did people from Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Don't know about Australia but my guess is that if I looked into it I'd find brutality among the original inhabitants there as well. The biggest thing about the Europeans is that the world came to a point in history where their military and transportation technologies were so much superior to those of other lands that they ended up pretty much taking over completely. They were the ones generally on top when the species matured to a point of starting to think wiping out, oppressing, enslaving other people is wrong.

Read Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History

[Winterborn]

That is a very good question and one of the current theories is that the typical animal or plant carriers here in the America's were sanitized somehow, so the local inhabitants lost what resistance they had coming over here from Asia, Europe, and Africa. They basically had a very weak immune system that was tailored to their environment, which lacked the normal hosts that other parts of the world had and built up the resistances of their populations. There is some speculation that when the Vikings and Welsh came over here long before Columbus that their interactions started the process. But we don't know for sure. And outside of time machine we may never know.

That is fascinating and you are correct about the time machine.

Is it talked about in Denevan's works?

Sorry, I missed your post here '88.

I do not remember as it has been sometime since I read Denevan's work. I ordered his book just so I have a copy of it as I checked the last one out of the college library. (which was well over a coon's age ago )

[Winterborn]

Yes doing that sort of thing was just what Homo sapiens did until relatively recent history. I think most people have heard about how brutal the Mayans, Aztecs, and Incas were. But the North American natives were brutal too. I read relatively recently about how brutal the Comanches were. They did their best to complete genocide against the Apaches and came pretty close to succeeding. They were really into torture, rape, etc. They also kept captives as slaves.

it's true that people from Europe did horrible things to other people. But so did people from Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Don't know about Australia but my guess is that if I looked into it I'd find brutality among the original inhabitants there as well. The biggest thing about the Europeans is that the world came to a point in history where their military and transportation technologies were so much superior to those of other lands that they ended up pretty much taking over completely. They were the ones generally on top when the species matured to a point of starting to think wiping out, oppressing, enslaving other people is wrong.

Read Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History

The Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Kiowa, and Cheyenne were all tribes you definitely wanted to stay away from back then. Interestingly enough, some of the tribes had no word for "friend" in their vocabulary, as anybody not of their tribe (or village in some cases) was automatically considered an enemy.

One of the eastern tribes, I forget which one, they would cut off the hands, feet and genitals of their enemy's so they would not be able to wield a weapon against them nor sire other males to fight against them.

[UNI88]

Read Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History

The Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Kiowa, and Cheyenne were all tribes you definitely wanted to stay away from back then. Interestingly enough, some of the tribes had no word for "friend" in their vocabulary, as anybody not of their tribe (or village in some cases) was automatically considered an enemy.

One of the eastern tribes, I forget which one, they would cut off the hands, feet and genitals of their enemy's so they would not be able to wield a weapon against them nor sire other males to fight against them.

I think it was CID that recommended that book and it was fascinating. The Comanche had varying degrees of slavery, younger captives might be adopted and not made slaves and the children of slaves could be Comanche. Quanah Parker's mother was captured, adopted, married a chief and was mother to a great chief. Their ability to assimilate captives increased their numbers and along with their mastery of the horse contributed to their success.

[Winterborn]

The Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Kiowa, and Cheyenne were all tribes you definitely wanted to stay away from back then. Interestingly enough, some of the tribes had no word for "friend" in their vocabulary, as anybody not of their tribe (or village in some cases) was automatically considered an enemy.

One of the eastern tribes, I forget which one, they would cut off the hands, feet and genitals of their enemy's so they would not be able to wield a weapon against them nor sire other males to fight against them.

I think it was CID that recommended that book and it was fascinating. The Comanche had varying degrees of slavery, younger captives might be adopted and not made slaves and the children of slaves could be Comanche. Quanah Parker's mother was captured, adopted, married a chief and was mother to a great chief. Their ability to assimilate captives increased their numbers and along with their mastery of the horse contributed to their success.

They are a fascinating people (actually almost all of the native tribes are, IMHO). An interesting what if is if the the Westward expansion of the U.S. and North-Western expansion of Texas would have held off another 30 or so years what might have been. One of their biggest hurdles is the low reproductive rate and their nomadic lifestyle to having any lasting influence int eh areas they claimed.

[GannonFan]

I think it was CID that recommended that book and it was fascinating. The Comanche had varying degrees of slavery, younger captives might be adopted and not made slaves and the children of slaves could be Comanche. Quanah Parker's mother was captured, adopted, married a chief and was mother to a great chief. Their ability to assimilate captives increased their numbers and along with their mastery of the horse contributed to their success.

They are a fascinating people (actually almost all of the native tribes are, IMHO). An interesting what if is if the the Westward expansion of the U.S. and North-Western expansion of Texas would have held off another 30 or so years what might have been. One of their biggest hurdles is the low reproductive rate and their nomadic lifestyle to having any lasting influence int eh areas they claimed.

What are you referring to by saying if the westward expansion waited 30 years later? What do you think that would've done? Just curious what you're referring to.

[Winterborn]

They are a fascinating people (actually almost all of the native tribes are, IMHO). An interesting what if is if the the Westward expansion of the U.S. and North-Western expansion of Texas would have held off another 30 or so years what might have been. One of their biggest hurdles is the low reproductive rate and their nomadic lifestyle to having any lasting influence int eh areas they claimed.

What are you referring to by saying if the westward expansion waited 30 years later? What do you think that would've done? Just curious what you're referring to.

If several things were a bit more delayed, I think the possibility exists that the Comanches would have been able to grow enough to re-shape several of the areas that became eventual states. But even giving them 30 more years, it was inevitable that they would have to submit to the U.S. Army but they may have been able to win enough concessions to change where they wound up at (Oklahoma).

They were a significant threat back then in the area, so the possibility exists that even with more time, they just might have been wiped out. Hard to judge what-ifs.

[GannonFan]

What are you referring to by saying if the westward expansion waited 30 years later? What do you think that would've done? Just curious what you're referring to.

If several things were a bit more delayed, I think the possibility exists that the Comanches would have been able to grow enough to re-shape several of the areas that became eventual states. But even giving them 30 more years, it was inevitable that they would have to submit to the U.S. Army but they may have been able to win enough concessions to change where they wound up at (Oklahoma).

They were a significant threat back then in the area, so the possibility exists that even with more time, they just might have been wiped out. Hard to judge what-ifs.

No, good point. In addition, the additional time would've gotten them closer to the time when people and governments stopped using war and genocide as legitimate political means. Not all by all means, but a decent critical mass that got the ball moving. Unfortunately for most Native American tribes, they didn't last long enough to get into that particular age of enlightenment.

[dal4018]

They are a fascinating people (actually almost all of the native tribes are, IMHO). An interesting what if is if the the Westward expansion of the U.S. and North-Western expansion of Texas would have held off another 30 or so years what might have been. One of their biggest hurdles is the low reproductive rate and their nomadic lifestyle to having any lasting influence int eh areas they claimed.

What are you referring to by saying if the westward expansion waited 30 years later? What do you think that would've done? Just curious what you're referring to.

Good old fashioned Bum Rush!!!!!!!!