The genocide that time forgot - The Native Americans

[Ned]

Just a question, but what do you consider the bulk of the population of Mexico (including the millions in the US), Central America and much of South America to be if not Native Americans?

[monkspider]

They can be accurately described as Native Americans, in modern times though, at least in the USA, the term "Native American" usually only applies to natives of tribes that used to exist in the USA.
The people you mention could be fairly described as "Native Americans" though, yes.

[KrazyHorse]

?

I think he's trying to say that most people in Latin America today are descended in part from Native Americans. Which, if you want to count one drop equalling an entirety, would make most people in Latin America Native Americans.

Want to do a genetic survey, Ned? Native American blood is extremely diluted in almost all Latin Americans. In countries like Uruguay, the percentage is approximately zero...

[Shi Huangdi]

Since when has this genocide been forgotten? This was a huge topic throughout my entire education what happened to native Americans.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: Re: The genocide that time forgot - The Native Americans

Originally posted by Frogger


Refer to my discussion with Chris about the same subject. The only serious estimates of native pop of NA as in 7 figures come from before the turn of the century. Most modern estimates hover around 50 million...

Modern estimates by sociologists and ethnologists. I've yet to see any peer reviewed studies out of archaeologists or physical anthropologists which support numbers that absurdly high.

The majority of studies based on physical evidence, show that it is clearly impossible to have numbers anywhere near 50 million (a little under a fifth the population of the present US, based on hunter-gatherer and limited primitive agricultural use )

In North America, you can pretty much kiss irrigation goodbye, and the combination of climate, water distribution, game density, evidence of agricultural practices, etc., doesn't come near 50 million. Simple fact is that 50 million people **** a lot, leave a lot of trash around, and among the nomadic and semi-nomadic native populations, they generally tended to move when either the nearby food supply got too low, or the stench got too high.

Camp and village site archaelogical finds are quite common, and give evidence of population densities both in terms of settlement size and duration, and the amount of land necessary to support that population in a hunter-gatherer or primitive agricultural system.

The more permanent settled tribes in the east had fair size settlements, but the largest long-term settlements I've seen serious reference to are in the 30,000 population range, and that based on a mostly seasonal population around ceremonially significant times - permanent population of those settlements were estimated at perhaps 10,000. The simple fact is that the amount of waste produced and food required in a settlement of even 10,000 people with no modern transport, agriculture or sewage is just staggering - people move on and move out to get food and so they don't drown in their own ****. Drinkable water supplies are also a huge problem in large primitive settlements.

There are several other factors - replacement of populations is one. The Anasazi died out, and there is some limited evidence that some few of them may have survived to give rise to the Tohono O'Odham, who became semi-nomadic. In southern California, the natives 500-600 years ago disappeared or were wiped out, and were replaced by Western Shoshonean groups, who were primitive desert hunter-gatherers.

In the period 1865 to 1876, (Red Cloud's War to the Little Bighorn), large gatherings of 1000 lodges or more broke up quickly because they simply overran the grazing ability of the land, and they couldn't support their horse population. Prior to domesticating the horse, the plains natives had to disperse even more, because their reduced rate of movement had them hunting smaller game - it was the horse that brought in the buffalo era.

In Utah, Dead Horse Point is well known as a hunting area (where horses were food, not vehicles for getting other food). Again, game populations (water and forage dependent) limit predator populations - kill all the food, and you starve yourself.

Even sophisticated Iroquis settlements had populations from several hundred to a few thousand. Game isn't stupid enough to stick around a surplus of predators, and primitive ag, fishing and gathering in Iriquois country is also highly seasonal and has max limits to the populations that could be supported in a given area.

You had high infant mortality, low lifespans, frequent raids and warfare, droughts, harsh winters, etc.

Most of the modern crop of high-population estimates get their numbers by making several fundamentally unsound assumptions, and by ignoring archaeological evidence (human **** and trash dumps are the mother lode of modern archaeology ).

Among the innacurate assumptions:

Assuming that the maximum possible population based on structural size of sites such as Canyon De Chelly, Tenochtitlan, Tikal, etc. was the permanent population.

Ignoring the effect of population displacement, i.e. lumping population of earlier groups with that of later groups.

Assuming that multiple nomadic settlements of short duration actually existed concurrently as longer term settlements.

Ignoring the effects and limitations on commerce - Tenochtitlan is a perfect example - a city which could not support itself, and only existed in it's peak population for a very short time at the height of Aztec power, because it survived only on increasing tax and tribute levies throughout the empire. Tenochtitlan was essentially a city putting itself out of business (much like Mexico city does now for most of it's population) by needing more resources than the regional economy could support - encouraging abandonment or population shifts in other settlements, reducing available food and commerce elsewhere in the empire, and encouraging migration to the capital.

In the Aztec case, that final population of close to a million (which is correct) didn't come because everything was hunky dorry and people were fat and happy and ****ing themselves into a population boom. It occured because the more Tenochtitlan bloated, the more it sucked out of the region in terms of taxes on goods and crops, and people followed the money.

If you assume that all areas of the empire were at their peak population simultaneously, then you're going to get a jacked up population, but that patten has never occured anywhere else, and there's no evidence that that Aztecs were any different.

BTW, I'm not relying on 19th century info - I'm relying on mid to late 1990's vintage archaeology, agriculture and anthropology work reported in the American Institute of Archaeology, and other sources.

I'd love to see any estimate of 50 million that went into real detail about how that number was derived and what physical evidence supposedly supports that value.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Frogger
?

I think he's trying to say that most people in Latin America today are descended in part from Native Americans. Which, if you want to count one drop equalling an entirety, would make most people in Latin America Native Americans.

Want to do a genetic survey, Ned? Native American blood is extremely diluted in almost all Latin Americans. In countries like Uruguay, the percentage is approximately zero...

There weren't a hell of a lot of them in Uruguay to begin with. Not like there's much of a population in the whole country now - less than four million total population in the whole country.

Here in México, the vast majority of the population has significant native descent, and there are a large number of pure or mostly pure blooded natives, albeit not always in the same tribal groups. A large portion of the population in rural southern Mexico speaks Spanish as a second language - Mayan and Nahuatl dialects are common in the south, and about 30% of the population is entirely or mostly of indigenous background, about 60% mixed indigenous and European.

[monkspider]

MTG, respectfully, most of your explanations against a large indian population seem to be rather ad-hoc, and are going the opinions against virtually the entirety of experts on Native American studies, even according to Carl Shaw of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, estimates of the pre-Columbus population of what later became the United States range from 5 million to 15 million.
If such a small number of native americans actually did exist, it's completely unheard of in all of academia.

[MichaeltheGreat]

"Native American studies" is a field in the social sciences.

I'm interested in physical evidence, ie archaeology, physical anthropology. i.e. people who get their hands dirty in the field and systematically produce and analyze real data.

In other words, scientists, not academics.

Like I said, if they can show physical evidence, or some details to support large area populations, bring it on.

Tell you what. If you think food supply, water supply, and waste accumulation issues are "ad hoc" when it comes to population density, why don't you get a hundred of your friends together, go out in the woods and set up camp. No modern niceties, go out and gather water, food, and pee and crap and ditch your bones, rotten meat, etc. right outside camp. See how much land area you take up, and how quickly you move.

There is a huge body of archaeological work that his been done concerning indigenous populations. I'm not being facetious about garbage piles and ****, either - that's the goldmine. For example, in Mesoamerican archaeology, nobody's currently especially interested in, or expecting to find, huge ceremonial sites like at Tikal or Tulum. But in the garbage and waste disposal areas of smaller provincial towns and small rural settlements, pottery shards, intact seeds in human feces, broken needles and tools, all give an indication of the extent of commerce between different areas within the Aztec and Mayan empires, and there are pretty sophisticated economic and commerce models of how the empires function, especially from the perspective of ordinary citizens and subjects, and areas outside the capital.

So again, if there's hard data to support five million, or five hundred million, I'm interested in seeing it. I don't give a rat's ass about an unsupported claim. Appeals to authority are meaningless. Where's the physical evidence or systematic, peer reviewed statistical methods to support these population estimates?

[notyoueither]

monkspider, your numbers defy reason.

Rome at her height had 1,000,000 people. That was with all the grain of Egypt to feed her.

Where did a city in the middle of Mezo-America get the food to feed 1,000,000 people?

[Wernazuma III]

I've come across a study that convincingly estimated the population density in Mayan classical era at 170-200/km², even with shifting cultivation. Such numbers could be exceeded by chinampa-agriculture by far. Estimating some 15-20 million inhabitants in Mexico alone doesn't seem to high to me.

[Wernazuma III]

1000000 is definitely too high for Tenochtitlan and Teotihuacan or any other city in Mesoamerica. 250-300000 for Tenochtitlan were the most convincing estimates I've read - but with the surroundings and "suburbs" it was much more. The Chinampas were incredibly fertile and could feed people even with high population density.

[monkspider]

MTG, when I said they were ad-hoc I meant that they seemed to be evidences pieced together to support an already presupposed conclusion, rather than evidence that cumulatively led these people to support the conclusion that they do.
I do confress that Anthropology is not my area of study, but if all scholars in the fields of social sciences tend to support one conclusion, then it seems to be fair to believe that they have some friends in anthropology somewhere. Even the Buereau of Indian affairs official numbers are much higher than what you suggest.
If these numberswere in fact, based on solid reasoning, and not empty conjecture into the nature of people hundreds of years ago, one could fairly assume that it would make it's rounds in the field of Social Sciences as well, no? Say what you will about appeals to authority, but it would seem these estimates you suggest have virtually no authority at all.
As is, your numbers remind me of young-earth creationists who piece together whatever spurious evidence they have to make it seem that the Earth is actually only 4,000 years old.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by notyoueither
monkspider, your numbers defy reason.

Rome at her height had 1,000,000 people. That was with all the grain of Egypt to feed her.

Where did a city in the middle of Mezo-America get the food to feed 1,000,000 people?

The "suburbs" were all the current Mexican states immediately surrounding the current DF - in other words, the core part of the Aztec empire. The outer provinces and tributaries had to make tribute payments every quarter of a set amount of different commodities - grains at harvest time, pottery or whatever local trade commodities were produced at other times. This sucking of support for the core empire limited the sustainable growth level in the other areas.

[notyoueither]

And I doubt they could have transported enough to feed 1,000,000, let alone grown it.

[monkspider]

NYE: Tenochtitlan proper probably only had about 300,00 residents, but taking into account the suburbs (as Wernazuma mentioned) it would end up being pretty close to a million. In fact, at the time of Cortez's arrival, it was one of the largest cities in the world.