And furthermore, the kind of people who are wont to excuse the behavior of European settlers in North America are not the ones who put forward the disease theory. They’re the ones who say that there were few natives in North America in he fret place.
Just FYI, while it’s common in mathematics or navigation to use “vector” in this manner, it’s unnecessarily confusing to use it that way when referring to disease. In epidemiology a vector is third-party means of transmission, such as a biting insect or soiled cutlery.
Much clearer to simply say that the disease followed the same routes.
Very true, and not just rednecks of course, many of the Old Money families are have also been inordinately proud of the Indian ancestry. And this attitude goes back at least 150 years. Even during the civil war Americans of all social classes were proudly proclaiming their Indian heritage.
This is not to say that some tiny proportion of people would not have found it shameful, but the vast majority of people have found it a source of pride or at the very least simply a matter of fact. While there are plenty of people who have hidden Negro ancestry for obvious reasons, I can’t recall anybody who has hidden Indian descent, from the days of John Rolfe to the present. The idea that any US or Canadian *historian *would have hidden evidence of Indian intermarriage is just nonsense.
It is imperfect at best, yes. But it is based on:
1- The Aztecs’ own records. These are not complete, but we do have them… or more precisely Spanish translations of some of them.
2- Observations and early Spanish records. The Spanish did take a census of the Valley of Mexico in the 1520s, showing a population of over a million in the Valley of Mexico alone. We also have individual observations regarding the Aztecs’ armies and several of their key cities and those of their enemies.
3- The 1568 census of New Spain. This recorded 410,000 in the Valley of Mexico and just under a million in neighboring valleys. Plus a bit over a million others outside the core area. And this is after the two most severe epidemics, which we have records of killing a majority of the indigenous peoples.
4- Archeological evidences.
Regardless of how we parse it, we do have a a census 47 years after Cortez, that shows a population a bit below 4 million people (both indigenous and non-indigenous) in Mexico. We have records that show that around 80% of the population had been killed (largely by disease) between the 1520s and the census. We have partial records and local censuses where we can verify that the population shrunk on this scale at least at those locations where records were kept. We have no locations that records were kept that show an increase in population or even a stable population… every location that we have records for shows a population decrease of 50-90%. We also have archeological evidences that show a broad abandonment of settlements in the 16th century.
You want to argue the 22 million number? Go right ahead. It is a best guess. I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out to be 5-10 million off the mark in either direction. But to say it “came from thin air” shows a blatant disregard of the evidences we do have. They are not perfect, but they do exist.
Now what do you think the population of Mexico was in 1492? And where is your evidence?
I want to point out, your numbers are wrong. Spain had a population in 1500 of about 7-8 million, the British Isles about 5-6 million, and France, about 15 million.
If that is correct, then if the Americas maintained the same average population density as Europe the population would have been ~1 billion people. If they managed to maintain even 1/10th of that then the population was still 100 million.
Pinguin’s claims that it was impossible for the Americas to maintain populations in the tens of millions are looking sillier and sillier.
As everyone in the know except (s)he knew.
I would love to hear what Pinguin’s actual estimate of the American population (in particular areas or overall) in 1491 is, and on what basis (s)he claim it is more defensible than the academic consensus is.
What were the real causes of the depopulation?
The causes?
First, bad counting.
(1) Disease was a contributing factor, but hardly the main reason.
(2) Killing and massacres were quite common, both in North America and Latin America.
(3) hunger induced by depletion of resources.
(4) assimilation
(5) admixture. One of the main reason of the extinction of natives in the Caribbean was that the native women were scarce and married mainly with Europeans, for example.
(6) Mixed and foreign populations had a reproductive rate higher than natives.
Among other reasons.
My estimation? 20 millions for the whole hemisphere. I can cite my sources, if you wish.
Please do.
Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but people have been begging you on their knees to do just this for several pages now.
It’s:
Apocalypto
Yes, that would be helpful. The more detailed the better.
I think the problem here is that penquin is going to reveal some dramatic hidden fact, such as “Genocide! The Euro’s slaughtered my ancestors!” or “There’s no such thing as a White American!”.
Which will be met with a yawn, as these are both well accepted facts already.
I’m no scholar, but I’m VERY interested to see these cites.
Penquin, will you be as accepting of counter-cites as you are hoping folks will be with yours?
Come now… it was a black man. An African slave in Panfilo de Narvaez’s party brought smallpox to Mesoamerica. (Here, I’ll even cite that for you.)
Now your argument is that you don’t believe disease killed the vast majority of the indigenous population? Seriously? Even the most ardent critics of high-count population figures don’t argue against depopulation by disease.
Really, man. When you move the goalposts, you’re supposed to move them farther back.
Subscribing to see the citation.
On a semi-unrelated note, is it poor form to wonder how long a poster is going to be with us? How
'bout wagering on it, is that tasteless?
.
I hope he/she does. The only reason I have stuck around this thread for this long is to find out what that point is. Pinguin clearly has some point he is trying to make, but rather than make it directly, he is laying the groundwork for it with all this population stuff.
I suspect it’s something along the lines of what is suggested in Post No. 93.
Somehow I’m going to guess not. I linked a CDC paper earlier, which itself had a dozen or so citations. This was pinguin’s response:
[QUOTE=pinguin]
That is what is called a “number chrunching” theory. Actually, that’s exactly what we are talking about: numbers that come from thin air.
[/QUOTE]
No refutation. No counter cites. Just a blanket dismissal. And when I posted some of the details on how Cook and Simpson came up with these numbers, which included an actual Spanish census, the best he came to a response was “bad counting.”
I for one am willing to entertain the possibility of a population of 20 million in the hemisphere in 1492. I certainly have no stake in the answer, but if pinguin wants to be convincing, evidence… any evidence would be helpful.
Wait. I am going to publish my data this night. Meanwhile, take a coffee.