We all know how Europeans genocided the Native American population after contact in 1492. But I was shocked to just learn that pre-European contact North America had a population of 2-6M. For comparison, Europe had a population of 70-150M.
It's my understanding that North American has bountiful land comparable to that of Europe. If that's true, then how the fuck did the Native Americans fall over an order of magnitude behind Europeans in population, before any of the post-contact guns germs steel and treachery arguments could apply?
Technology, organization. Tribal people tend to live short, brutal lives.
>Europeans genocided the Native American population
You think these are Spaniards?
Genetically they're half Spanish. Also he's discussing with North American natives.
Mexico is in North America. And what does a pure native look like if those brown motherfucker are "half Spanish"?
Pure natives are pretty fucking ugly
do you found those attractive? lol
No, they're also butt ugly. But natives look like they're from another planet
The people in South America now are mixed Spanish/Portuguese/Black slave/Native American.
The natives weren't so much genocided, as they died of disease born in highly populated European cities. The rest were absorbed into the colonizing population.
Phenotypically they're indistinguishable from the average Spaniard / Italian / Moor
At least they’re whiter than Arabs and Nafris
Spaniards are more hairy.
>You think these are Spaniards?
I understand that there was more miscegenation among the South American natives. However you may be surprised to know that while the population estimate for North America in 1500 was 2-6M; the population estimate for South America in 1500 was 40M. Thus we can theorize that the greater miscegenation was merely a corollary of the greater population, not a difference in and of itself. Which brings us back to the original mystery - why was the North American population so low (nevermind Mexico)?
>It was a bountiful land because there was less people in it.
Which begs the question, why didn't their population multiply Malthusian-style until it was no longer per-capita bountiful, as Europe's did?
>Technology, organization. Tribal people tend to live short, brutal lives.
>Hunter gatherer lifestyle
This is the only theory I've heard proposed. Is this the only explanation? And if it is, why were they stuck in this mode when hunter gatherers in Europe and China managed to transition, even in the face of repeated invasion from other hunter gatherers?
natives who lived around new england/nova scotia were from europe.
during the ice age, europeans migrated across the ice to modern day North america, the same way asians migrated.
this is why native americans around new england built longhouses and wore pants, they used to be proto bell beakers.
Sweet, another solutrean schitzo, forget to take your meds this evening?
Oh wait I stand corrected, you're claiming that the beakers travelled all the way across Siberia, across the Bering land bridge, and into the Americas through Alaska all the way to Prince Edward Island? You've lost your mind
Absolutely fucking mogged. Haplogroup Q'd
It was a bountiful land because there was less people in it.
Hunter gatherer lifestyle