• pimento64@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    2 days ago

    People are weirdly against this idea, I think because they believe it diminishes the deliberate genocide that came later, which it doesn’t. The horrible truth is that disease spread through completely biologically defenseless populations starting in the late 15th century. By the time European countries were consolidating colonial power, the Native population had been obliterated by somewhere between 65–89%. Those aren’t extremes, that’s a range of completely plausible figures. The variance is so large because it’s hard to tell how many people used to live in a place when disease, unaided, killed every person in every settlement in unthinkably huge areas. To say entire tribes disappeared is an understatement, entire networks of multiple cultures were wiped out so thoroughly that their memory is lost forever. The Native American population in 1800 was a small fraction of the number of people who once lived.

    • inverted_deflector@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 days ago

      Even in the american mythos of the mayflower it mentions them surviving off established food caches and stores from abandoned settlements. People dont think much about that, but they werent left behind because the natives were so welcoming to the Pilgrims.

      • kersploosh@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        Not sure about Lewis and Clark, but I have read that David Thompson did.

        George Vancouver recorded beaches strewn with old human bones. Around the same time he wrote journal entries along the lines of, “Wow, look at all this rich, uninhabited land that would be ideal for settlements!” I don’t recall Ol’ George ever putting two and two together.