[29athrowaway]

Documented every time you go outside and noone looks Native American in a continent where 100% of the population was once Native American.

And where bisons were so numerous that roamed the land lifting so much dust that the sky turned dark.

[therealdrag0]

That’s poor reasoning there’s many things that reduced native populations. You can’t just pick one and claim it’s the most important without evidence.

[chiefalchemist]

There were a lot of bison.

There were a lot of natives.

The European outsiders all but eliminated both. No guilt. No respirations.

What more do we need to know?

[therealdrag0]

A lot lot lot more. It’s sad you think you can reduce complex history to two sentences and sad you don’t think correlations should be inspected for validity.

You don’t think disease, land stealing, or war should be part of the picture?

[chiefalchemist]

It's sad you mucking in the details and ignoring the genocide.

Reducing? Beats ignoring

[therealdrag0]

What did I say that ignores the genocide?

[chiefalchemist]

You're not talking about it. You're using a classic deflection / distraction tactic.

You also don't seem to be aware that history is not absolute. In this case, there are *at least* three lens: the genociders, the genocidees, and the buffalo / bison.

You seem to be stuck on defending the genociders by demanding justification or some sort of analysis. But we know exactly what happened. We know why.

[polartx]

>no guilt. No reparations.

Have you ever wondered why the European North American settlers didn’t have a unified indigenous empire to contend with, such as could be found in Central and South America? (Ie Incan or Aztec).

I would posit that it was because the Hunter/raider/gatherer societies could not sustain growth beyond a certain point. For whatever reason, the North American indigenous tribes would not cross a threshold of government and infrastructure that is required to eliminate their reliance on raiding (the perpetual changing hands of limited refined resources), and game hunting (ie lack of livestock domestication and food storage that allow for permanent settlements, growth).

What the Europeans did to the Indians was as horrendous in execution as it was consequential to the decisions those tribes made during the hundreds of years leading up to the arrival of the Europeans.

Who knows what may had been if Columbus had been confronted with a unified indigenous empire with permanent settlements and defensive emplacements? Instead he found desperate tribes of marauding Indians, reliant on a singular food source and very willing to accept short term alliances for short term infighting advantages.

Its hardly a thing, IMO, for a descendant many generations removed to feel guilty over…let alone pay penance for.

[29athrowaway]

The "aztecs" (Mexica) are not a good example. The Fall of Tenochtitlan was facilitated by an alliance between the Spanish Empire and Tlaxcala.

The Tahuantinsuyu (Inca) had a civil war of succession followed by a purge of the nobility after the monarch died Huayna Capac of smallpox.

So not even in those cases they faced a unified front.

And the innovations you mention are not enough. On one side you have no navigation technology (map making, compass, etc), no animal traction.

[polartx]

That is correct, and I feel like it supports my point..in both of those examples the incumbent empire was weakened by infighting—-a non unified front. I’m not as steeped on the Aztecs as I am the Incas, but Pizarro and Diego de Amargo arrived as conquerors in a company whose singular purpose was conquest. They were encircled and outnumbered 500 to 1 in what was effectively a kill box. Technology and horses gave them the upper hand, but the domino which instituted the downfall of the Incan empire is that the emperor himself was present _inside_ the killbox. Pride goeth before the fall. Which allowed Pizarro to charge through his soldiers and literally seize him from his royal litter…I don’t think this exception disproves that a unified front with defensive emplacements could have withstood a few hundred horse borne conquerors.

[hluska]

I’m Canadian and Canada is part of the continent you’re talking about. I can’t go anywhere without running into indigenous people I know personally. Canada’s program of ethnic cleansing was several levels deeper than the United States but indigenous people are all over. Demographics suggest they will be the majority in my province before I die.

The US experience does not speak for the entire continent.

[29athrowaway]

Now take a DNA sample for each one of the males and check the paternal haplogroup. That will tell you a story.

Why so many of them have paternal haplogroup R (European)? (in some areas, with a frequency of up to 88% of males)

What really means is that the natives you are running into are... you.

What happened to the rest?

[morelisp]

You seem to be... bragging about? or at least seeking recognition for? your country's policy of forced assimilation vs. another country's policy of forced removal.

Aside from being a deeply weird thing to say, there's no buffalo left in either case.

[bequanna]

A good number of Native Americans in almost every place I’ve lived in the upper Midwest.

[OrvalWintermute]

This is not true as Native American can mean many things, and the fossil record for the Americas is richer in South America than it is North America, some of which may be in part due to the Smithsonian coverup.

The Paiute tribes, and others, have stories about the long war they fought against the Si-Te-Cah which were giant red-headed cannibals, and there are samples from that war that still exist. The Choctaw similarly have stories of their wars against the Nahullo (white giants), similarly, that were cannibals, as do many other tribes.

There have been many Smithsonian coverups of the well-reported giant findings https://grahamhancock.com/dewhurstr1/ and some of the skeletons are both the more ancient Giant Native American mound peoples (non-caucasian), and the described caucasian skulls.

South America is replete with giant skulls and skeletons, some of which have characteristics fundamentally different from normal human skulls and are not merely headboarded infants. Many of these skulls have some similarities to the Mound people's giant skulls found in North America.

Many of the skulls and DNA they've found are not simply North Asian, Eastern Asian and Southern Asian, but also show other groups history in the Americas too, such as the Australo-Melanesian findings

https://sciencenordic.com/anthropology-archaeology-denmark/d...

https://www.science.org/content/article/mysterious-link-emer...

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-dna-fossils-sout...

https://www.livescience.com/61319-dna-first-americans-lineag...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/science/polynesian-ancest...

[morelisp]

Graham Hancock citing Ralph Glidden! Hollow earth is next, right?