FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53382
Could probably say that about several team nicknames. Patriots, Commanders, Buffalo Bills, Texans, Cowboys, Vikings, Rangers, etc.dal4018 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:58 am Just saw this about The San Francisco 49ers https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oSAdfeD6 ... ture=share
Finally a rabbit hole I know something about.
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.Winterborn wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:23 amFinally 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.
1491UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:01 pm90 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.Winterborn wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:23 am
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.
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.UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:01 pm90 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.Winterborn wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:23 am
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.
Any book recommendations for the topic?
Good stuff, WB.Winterborn wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 7:06 amYou 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.UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:01 pm
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?
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 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 7:06 amYou 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.UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:01 pm
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?
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.
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 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 10:26 amI 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 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 7:06 am
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.
That is fascinating and you are correct about the time machine.Winterborn wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 11:09 amThat 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.Winterborn wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 11:09 amThat 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.
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.GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 11:25 amWinterborn wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 11:09 am
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.
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.Gil Dobie wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 5:57 amCould probably say that about several team nicknames. Patriots, Commanders, Buffalo Bills, Texans, Cowboys, Vikings, Rangers, etc.dal4018 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:58 am Just saw this about The San Francisco 49ers https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oSAdfeD6 ... ture=share
Nothing shocks me about this country.JohnStOnge wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 5:01 pmYes 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 HistoryJohnStOnge wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 5:01 pmYes 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.
Sorry, I missed your post here '88.UNI88 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 11:25 amThat is fascinating and you are correct about the time machine.Winterborn wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 11:09 am
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.
Is it talked about in Denevan's works?
)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.UNI88 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:54 amRead Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American HistoryJohnStOnge wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 5:01 pm
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.
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 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:31 amThe 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.UNI88 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 10:54 am
Read Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History
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.
They are a fascinating people (actually almost all of the native tribes are, IMHO).UNI88 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:47 amI 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 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:31 am
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.
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 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 11:39 amThey are a fascinating people (actually almost all of the native tribes are, IMHO).UNI88 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:47 am
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.
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).GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 11:56 amWhat 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 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 11:39 am
They are a fascinating people (actually almost all of the native tribes are, IMHO).
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.Winterborn wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 5:01 amIf 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.
Good old fashioned Bum Rush!!!!!!!!GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 11:56 amWhat 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 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 11:39 am
They are a fascinating people (actually almost all of the native tribes are, IMHO).