Great information. On the contrary, I will research the guy, and I could even try to met him and ask some questions.
The Iroquois is one of the native groups that I admired the most. They create the first federal and democratic system in the Americas! In the political sense they were a lot more advanced than Incas, Mayans or Mexicans ruled by tyrans and superstition. So, you could bet I will follow your advice and looking for his work.
I don’t disagree there was a heavy impact of disease on native populations. What I disagree is on the figures of that impact. For instance, I know from local scientists that in my region a mixed child has a lot more chances to survive than a native child during colonial times. Even today, the first thing the Brazilian government does when a non-contacted tribe is contacted is vaccinate them. So, that is not the point.
You very well know science works on paradigms. In doubt, read Thomas Khun. All I have said is that the High Count paradigm is wrong. :rolleyes: I believe that paradigm was invented to “demostrate” the large impact of diseases.
But science doesn’t work by fixing the data, but by looking for the fact!
For instance, the extinction of the Tainos is today put in doubt. Assimilation is not the same that extiction, and genetics have shown Amerindian mtDNA is abundant in the Hispanic Caribbean.
Certainly. The Taino culture disappeared, but there still many things of that culture that survived.
Just some examples:
(1) In Spanish, the native language that influenced the most was Taino; more than any other language, including Quechua or Nahuatl. There are thousand of Taino words in Spanish (and sometimes in English, too), including canoe and hamock
(2) When you see those “Afro-Caribbean” bands playing Salsa, Merengue or Cuban music, remember that Maracas and Guiros are native in origin.
(3) Hamocks and barbecues come from Taino culture.
(4) Yuca and other traditional Caribbean foods are a legacy of Tainos.
Of course, it was a disgresion. However, what is not a disgresion is that you can find Amerindian mtDNA in Cubans, Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, in proportions of 33%, 40% and 15% (more or less), which shows that a native population survived.
You certainly have. You’ve said that over and over and over. You’ve done nothing but repeatedly say that.
We understand that. Your belief is not in doubt. You have made your beliefs abundantly clear. But…
THIS is what you have failed to do. You have offered NO data. You have contributed NO facts. You have not offered one single solitary FACTUAL rebuttal of the status quo. You have given nothing but statements of belief, over and over and over and over again. I note that you casually skipped over the part of my post where I carefully explained the difference between scientific debate and what you’re doing.
For the record, I don’t give a flying fart about the actual topic here. I don’t care if there were thirty billion Native Americans or three when Columbus arrived. It is a matter of supreme indifference to me. What does irritate me is people attempting to discredit science with ignorant, paper-thin rants, based on gut feeling rather than information, and against that I will stand up.
If you aren’t Interesting in American Indians, please leave this thread. It is not for you.
Perhaps you could return to Europe as well, as a matter of consistency… :rolleyes: I mean, people living on the New World, and not caring for the original people should move back. My humble oppinion, anyways.
I already explained quite clearly, using small words, why I have involved myself in this thread. I note that you’ve ignored that part of my post as well.
Ah, ha. I think we may have finally stumbled upon something here. So you’re saying that because some scientists a century ago invented something that was used for harmful purposes, we should distrust everything that science has discovered since then. Specifically, because of the existence of mustard gas, people who claim to have generated reasonably accurate estimates of pre-Columbian Native American population levels are lying, deceitful bastards, who are willfully and deliberately inventing false information in order to deceive everyone and wickedly imply that Native American immune systems were unable to cope with foreign pathogenic bacteria. Your logic is impeccable, and the connection crystal clear.
Look, if you want to deny the value of science, have at it. There is a wide range of people on the internet with pet theories that make absolutely no sense. Go join them, and have a blast. You won’t hear a peep from me. But as long as you dress up your delusional rantings in scientific jargon and try to pretend that there’s good, actual evidence that specific scientific findings are incorrect, when, of course, no such evidence exists, I will argue against you. All I’m asking is that you be honest and upfront about your motivations and prejudices.
I don’t doubt about science. When the scientific method is applied as it should be, we can expect the information it gives is reliable.
The problem is that not always the scientific method is applied fully by scientist. Scientist are humans after all, they want to be rock stars of science, and sometimes they rush to conclusions in order to publish. It is not the first time that a scientific theory fall down because of lack of quality in the research.
And because scientists are humans, they also commit mistakes, like working in building weapons, for instance.
The problem, from my POV, is that he is a scientist. And you keep arguing, in essence, that science and scientists are untrustworthy and their estimates little more than wild guesses.
But you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t dismiss the work of scientists that disagree with your preconceived notions and then embrace the ones that do. Not if you’re arguing ( as you have been ) that science doesn’t have the answers. It’s one thing to say I don’t agree with the work of authority A because of Reason B ( say Snow extrapolating from his work on Mohawks to wider demographic estimates ) or the reasoned counter-arguments of authority C. It’s another to blithely dismiss the work of scientists altogether as you have done, because then any appeal to scientific authority becomes hypocritical.
Show that someone is guilty of doing this. All you’re doing is making ad hominem attacks on people whose conclusions you possibly disagree with. Note that I say “possibly,” because one thing you have demonstrated in this thread is that you don’t really understand what any particular scientist has to say, even the ones that you think you agree with.
Building weapons is manufacturing, not science. Whatever moral failure you might ascribe to a scientist who has participating in manufacturing, it is irrelevant to evaluating the validity of that scientist’s research, conclusions, and discoveries.